DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Morrison 2019 ONOCT 45

Date: 2019-06-04

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Jeffery Murdock Morrison, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JEFFERY MURDOCK MORRISON (REGISTRATION # 520999)

PANEL: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair

Marlène Marwah

Sara Nouini, OCT

HEARD: June 4, 2019

Ava Arbuck and Kathryn McChesney of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers

Sheilagh Turkington of Cavalluzzo LLP, for Jeffery Murdock Morrison

Julie Maciura of Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 4, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated January 12, 2018 (Exhibit 1) was served on Jeffery Murdock Morrison (the “Member”), inviting him to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for June 4, 2019.

The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation. The Committee was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teacher’s Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);¹

(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);²

(d) he failed to supervise adequately a student or students who are under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);³

(f) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(g) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and

(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:

Jeffery Murdock Morrison is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School in Mississauga, Ontario (the “School”).
On or around January 29, 2017, the Member assigned his Grade [XXX] [XXX] students a [XXX] task which required students to form groups of approximately 7 to 8 students and come up with a [XXX] to perform in front of the class. Specifically, the students were required to read a prepared script and change their voices to convey emotions.
When one group of students was unable to come up with an idea for a script, the Member attempted to help them find a topic. The Member suggested that it would be “cool” if the students performed a cooking-style show. The Member suggested the students use a technique similar to that used in a Public Service Announcement recently shown in a police presentation at the School based on the ingredients of cigarettes. However, he suggested that the group use an anti-drug theme for the presentation.
The Member searched drug ingredients to locate a list of harmful or scary sounding ingredients that the group could use in their skit. The Member searched several websites on his computer until he found an article that included a list of ingredients commonly used in creating crystal meth. “Crystal meth” is the common name for methamphetamine, a strong and highly addictive drug that affects the central nervous system. The Member asked the group, “are you comfortable with that?” and the students agreed with the idea. From the Member’s perspective, he believed the students understood the absurdist idea.
The Member printed up the document as the classes were rotating and the only option was to send it to print outside of the classroom. As was the practice in the School, one of the students was sent to retrieve the document. The document printed out as two pages: the first page listed the ingredients and the second page provided instructions on how to prepare and administer the substance. The Member’s focus was on the list of ingredients and he did not realize there was a second page when he sent it to print. The Member acknowledges that providing the instructions for cooking or injecting crystal meth was inadvertent and he very much regrets that this occurred. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit “B” is a copy of the two-page document which the Member provided to his students for use in his [XXX] class.
The students created and practiced their [XXX] assignment in class over the next few weeks. The Member was absent for the next [XXX] class. Upon his return to class, he realized the group had altered what he understood to be the original scene idea. He provided assistance to the students on how to convey their [XXX]. For example, the Member facilitated a practice session with the group where he directed the students to be more expressive when reading the ingredients for crystal meth and to make it sound scary. The Member’s goal was to encourage the students to be more expressive. His intention through his assistance was to ensure that the scene would be received as satirical in nature.

Board Investigation:

The matter came to the Board’s attention on or about February 13, 2017, when the parent of one of the Member’s students contacted the Board after she found the document in her son’s bag. The parent also contacted the CBC.
Upon being notified of the incident, the Board commenced an investigation on February 13, 2017, that included interviews with some of the students involved. All but one of the students interviewed advised that they felt uncomfortable with the topic suggested by the Member, but they did not tell the Member how they felt. Some of the students indicated that they felt they could not say “no” to the Member when he asked them if they were comfortable with the topic; some indicated they did not share with their parents the fact that they were asked to do the skit because they were concerned the Member would get into trouble. Ultimately, the students did not perform the [XXX].
The Board met with the Member and his representative on February 14, 2017. The Member explained that it was his intention to have the students portray what not to put into their bodies, given the “absurdity” of the ingredients included in the recipe. When he printed the document from his computer, he intended to print only the ingredient list, and did not realize he had printed up the instructions for preparing and injecting the substance that accompanied the ingredients. He acknowledged he should have reviewed the document before he sent it to be printed and allowed the students to retrieve it. He also acknowledged that upon reflection, crystal meth was not an appropriate topic for [XXX] students. The Member was sent home with pay until further notice.
On February 15, 2017, the Board’s Manager of Communications sent an email to others at the Board entitled: “URGENT: Media re: inappropriate [XXX] assignment”, regarding the fact that the CBC intended to air a media story about the Member’s assignment, and on Friday, February 17, 2017, the CBC aired a story about how a [XXX] teacher at the School gave students an assignment on how to make and inject crystal meth. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of an email from the Board’s Manager of Communications regarding the media coverage of the incident.
By letter dated March 9, 2017, the Board advised the Member that he would be suspended without pay for five days for his “lack of professional judgment and discretion as the classroom teacher in the delivery and supervision of an activity in his grade [XXX] [XXX] class”. The Board concluded that the Member’s “decision to select crystal meth as a topic for a [XXX] presentation or skit is inexcusable and totally age inappropriate”, and his “decision to give students an article entitled, “Guide – how to setup and inject Amphetamine safely” as research information and guide for their [XXX] presentation, and his decision not to read and review the two page article, further demonstrates [his] profound lack of professional judgement and discretion”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated March 9, 2017.
The Board advised the Member that upon his return following his suspension, he would be placed temporarily as an occasional teacher at another school until the end of the 2016-2017 academic year, after which he could seek a new full time position at another school. He was also prohibited from returning to a teaching position at the School for a period of no less than three years beginning on September 1, 2017.

Plea of No Contest

By this document,⁴ the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional], and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(f) he understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

DECISION

Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(7.2) and 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Committee find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). The Committee granted these requests.

Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Committee rendered an oral decision on June 4, 2019 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18 - unprofessional) and 1(19).

Paragraphs 5-7 and 12 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to supervise adequately students who are under the professional supervision of the Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11).

Paragraphs 5-7 and 10 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).

Paragraphs 5-11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).

Paragraphs 5-11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:

direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) within 180 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar which addresses appropriate professional boundaries and teaching approaches based on an understanding of adolescent development, subject to the following conditions;

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

PENALTY DECISION

In an oral decision rendered on June 4, 2019, the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and made an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case. The penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v.Gumulak, 2016 ONOCT 23, Ontario College of Teachers v. Barros, 2017 ONOCT 5 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gabourie, 2017 ONOCT 88.

The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate, unprofessional and irresponsible conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Committee is troubled that the Member made available a step-by-step instruction manual to his Grade [XXX] [XXX] class on how make and inject crystal methamphetamine, a strong and highly addictive drug. Members of the teaching profession are expected to maintain appropriate boundaries with students at all times, to act as positive role models and to create safe spaces in which students can learn and develop. The Member’s conduct in this case demonstrated a concerning lack of professional judgment and made students feel uncomfortable. As a teacher of impressionable Grade [XXX] students, the Member should have been much more careful when providing articles or research information to students. The Member should have also reviewed the content of the article to ensure that it was age appropriate and that it was pedagogically appropriate, before sharing it with students. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding appropriate professional boundaries and teaching approaches based on an understanding of adolescent development will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

The Committee notes that the Board has already disciplined the Member and that he received a five-day suspension without pay.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: June 4, 2019

______________________________

John Hamilton, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

_____________________________