DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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 James Robert Goodfellow, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JAMES ROBERT GOODFELLOW (REGISTRATION #280324)
PANEL: Jonathan Rose, Chair Sara Nouini, OCT Tom Potter
HEARD: June 11, 2019
Jason D. Bennett for Ontario College of Teachers Jack Brown, representative of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, for James Robert Goodfellow Erica Richler 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 11, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated October 10, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on James Robert Goodfellow (the “Member”), inviting him to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for June 11, 2019.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had 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 James Robert Goodfellow, OCT is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers 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, physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);1
(c) he failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(d) 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);
(e) 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
(f) 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:
James Robert Goodfellow is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). In November 1997, the Member obtained a Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Attached as Appendix “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 Upper Canada District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] (Grades [XXX]), [XXX] (Grades [XXX]), and [XXX] (Grade [XXX]) teacher at [XXX] and [XXX] School (the “School”), in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3 were male Grade [XXX] students in the Member’s [XXX] class at the School.
May 10, 2016 – Incident One
During the Member’s [XXX] class on May 10, 2016, Student 1 and Student 2 asked the Member if they could [XXX] a metal chair to the top of a push lawnmower that was present in the classroom.
The Member rejected their proposal, explaining that it was unsafe and a distraction from their usual class work.
Shortly thereafter, while the Member was engaged with another student, the Member heard a loud commotion behind him. When he turned around, the Member saw Student 2 sitting on a chair placed on top of the lawnmower, which was being pushed around the classroom by Student 1.
The Member immediately approached Student 1 and Student 2 and loudly instructed them to stop, but Student 1 continued to push the lawnmower toward a group of students who were watching events unfold.
To gain access to the lawnmower’s handle, the Member brushed Student 1 aside, resulting in direct but inadvertent physical contact with Student 1.
The Member then forcefully grabbed the lawnmower handle to stop its forward motion and prevent it from colliding with the group of students. Doing so caused Student 2 to fall off the chair onto the floor and hit his back, resulting in inadvertent and indirect physical contact with Student 2.
As neither Student 1 nor Student 2 showed signs of injury or harm, the Member instructed them to go to the School principal’s office.
In a discipline letter dated August 31, 2016, the School concluded that on May 10, 2016 the Member had engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 and Student 2 during the Member’s [XXX] class. Attached as Appendix “B” is a copy of the School’s letter dated August 31, 2016.
May 10, 2016 – Incident Two
The Member’s [XXX] classroom during the period in question consisted of two adjoining rooms – a small standard classroom and a large [XXX] room – with a single door and window connecting the two.
The Member regularly instructed his students not to use equipment and [XXX] in the [XXX] room unless he is present. The Member reinforced this rule through numerous safety training modules that he delivered to students.
Despite this rule and training, during the Member’s [XXX] class on May 10, 2016, Student 2 hooked himself up to a [XXX] in the [XXX] room and Student 3 used the [XXX] to lift Student 2 until his feet were off the floor.
In the August 31, 2016 letter (Appendix “B”), the School concluded that on May 10, 2016 the Member had failed to adequately supervise students during his [XXX] class.
Prior Supervision Incidents
- In the August 31, 2016 letter (Appendix “B”), the School also noted that the Member had received two prior discipline letters, one on December 15, 2014 and one on April 20, 2015, related to the Member’s inadequate supervision of his classroom and his failure to comply with School procedures on reporting unauthorized student absences to School administrators.
Board’s Discipline Measures
On August 31, 2016, the Board suspended the Member for three days without pay and directed the Member to take a classroom management course approved by the Board and at the Member’s expense before October 3, 2016, which course the Member successfully completed. Attached as Appendix “C” is a copy of a confirmation letter from the course provider dated September 27, 2016.
In a letter dated September 6, 2016, the Board notified the College of its August 31, 2016 discipline decision. Attached as Appendix “D” is a copy of the Board’s letter dated September 6, 2016.
The Member’s union, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, grieved the Board’s discipline and the Member’s suspension was eventually reduced from three days without pay to one day without pay. A copy of the document confirming this reduction is attached at Appendix “E”.
Plea of No Contest
By this document,2 the Member does not contest the truth of the facts and Appendices referred to in paragraphs 1 to 19 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct that 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 signing this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that he is pleading no contest to the allegations, and is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) 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;
(e) he understands that any agreement between him and the College with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(f) 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 and Fitness to Practice 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 and the plea of no contest, 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 allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) 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 the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on June 11, 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 19 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 6, 8, and 9 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 14 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11).
Paragraphs 6 and 14 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 6, 8, and 9 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 6, 8, and 9 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”); and
direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations are to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) within 90 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and 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 regarding classroom management, subject to the following conditions;
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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 certificate from the course practitioner 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 11, 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. Neumann, 2014 ONOCT 74, Ontario College of Teachers v. Gumulak, 2016 ONOCT 23, Ontario College of Teachers v. Richard, 2015 ONOCT 68, Ontario College of Teachers v. De Mare, 2018 ONOCT 72 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Stodola, 2018 ONOCT 22.
The mitigating factors in this case include the Member’s guilty plea, which saved the time and expense of a contested hearing, and the fact that he has no discipline history before this Committee and was already disciplined by his Board. Moreover, the physical contact with students was inadvertent and an isolated event and the layout of the Member’s classroom made student supervision more challenging than an average classroom. The College did not allege any aggravating factors. After weighing the factors before it, the Committee is satisfied that the proposed penalty is reasonable.
The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Committee is concerned that the Member’s inadequate control of his classroom led to dangerous situations that placed students at risk. 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 classroom management 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 is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: June 13, 2019
Jonathan Rose Chair, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Tom Potter Member, Discipline Panel