DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Allarde 2019 ONOCT 65
Date: 2019-06-21
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
Carlo Gabriel Allarde, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CARLO GABRIEL ALLARDE (REGISTRATION #631341)
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Josée Landriault, OCT Tom Potter
HEARD: June 18, 2019
Jason Bennett, for Ontario College of Teachers
Heather Ann McConnell of Goldblatt Partners LLP, for Carlo Gabriel Allarde
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 18, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated November 26, 2018 (Exhibit 1) was served on Carlo Gabriel Allarde (the “Member”), inviting him to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for June 18, 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 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 failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(c) 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);
(d) 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
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Carlo Gabriel Allarde is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked 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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School’’) in Toronto, Ontario.
Background
All Grade 3 students who attend publicly funded schools and who follow the Ontario curriculum are required to write an Assessment of Reading, Writing and Mathematics, Primary Division (the “Grade 3 EQAO assessment”) under the direction of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (“EQAO”) and in accordance with the Education Quality and Accountability Office Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 11.
Schools across the province are required to administer the Grade 3 EQAO assessment in accordance with the requirements of the EQAO. Each school determines its own testing dates and times during a designated assessment period.
On or about June 5, 2017, the Grade 3 EQAO assessment was administered at the School. The Member was one of the teachers administering the assessment.
The Member was provided with a copy of the EQAO Administration Guide prior to the assessment date; the School’s vice-principal directed the Member to review the administration steps in the Guide; the vice-principal invited the Member to see him if the Member had any questions about how to administer the Grade 3 EQAO assessment; the Member made a presentation to parents at an EQAO information session; and the Member had marked EQAO assessments in the past. If the Member were to testify he would say that he made a request to the School’s principal for training on EQAO test administration, however no such training was provided.
The EQAO Administration Guide provides that “Teachers…will ensure that….during the assessments, students do not receive:
(a) instruction on any concepts or items from the assessments once the assessment materials have been opened;
(b) explanations, definitions, translation or examples of reading, writing or mathematics terminology; or
(c) encouragement or influence to alter or revise their responses.”
Events at the School on June 5, 2017
- The Member inappropriately interfered in the administration of the Grade 3 EQAO assessment at the School when he:
(a) wrote in student booklets;
(b) circled key words in student booklets; and
(c) drew arrows in student booklets in order to direct students’ attention to parts of questions and answers.
The Board conducted an investigation and substantiated allegations that he [sic] Member had interfered with several students’ independent completion of the Grade 3 EQAO assessment on June 5, 2017.
On June 26, 2017, the Board issued a letter of discipline to the Member. As a remedial measure, the Member was required to review the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession issued by the Ontario College of Teachers; the Board’s Code of Conduct; and the EQAO Administration Guide – Elementary Guidelines and Procedures. The Member’s federation filed a grievance in respect of the letter of discipline and the matter has been referred to arbitration. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the discipline letter issued by the Board.
EQAO Decision
On or about June 13, 2017, the Board reported the Member’s inappropriate administration of the Grade 3 EQAO assessment to the EQAO.
In a letter to students, parents and guardians dated October 5, 2017, the EQAO advised that an irregularity had occurred during the administration of the Grade 3 EQAO assessment at the School and therefore the results reported for certain Grade 3 students may not accurately reflect their actual level of achievement.
The EQAO withheld the Grade 3 EQAO assessment results, noting in its October 5, 2017 letter that “EQAO will not report results when their integrity may have been compromised by irregularities in test administration”. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a copy of EQAO’s October 5, 2017 letter.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document,1 the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-13 above (the “Admitted Facts”) for the purposes of this proceeding only.
The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty 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) 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 by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that he is pleading guilty 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 his counsel 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.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on June 18, 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) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to adequately supervise a person placed under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11).
Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member 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).
Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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 that the fact of the reprimand be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of two months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and direct that the fact of the suspension be recorded on the Register;
direct 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 in professional ethics. The course shall be pre-approved by the Registrar and be 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; and
(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; and
(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 18, 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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Debich, 2018 ONOCT 8; Ontario College of Teachers v. Pickard, 2007 ONOCT 34; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Burke, 2018 ONOCT 75.
The Member engaged in the inappropriate administration of the Grade 3 EQAO assessment. Specifically, the Member inappropriately interfered with several students’ independent completion of the EQAO test by writing in student booklets, circling key words, and drawing arrows to direct student attention to parts of questions and answers in contravention of the instructions in the Administration Guide provided to him. The Member jeopardized the reliability and integrity of the provincial testing process. Ultimately, the results from the EQAO Grade 3 assessments were withheld from the School and parents were advised that results reported for certain Grade 3 students may not accurately reflect their actual level of achievement.
The Committee finds that because of his involvement in the improper administration of the EQAO Grade 3 assessment, the Member’s misconduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. 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 by signaling to the profession and to the public the importance of ethical conduct in our schools.
The Committee finds that the two-month suspension is reasonable in the circumstances. The Member administered the EQAO Grade 3 assessment in a way that contravened the EQAO instructions and guidelines. Teachers must fulfill the roles and responsibilities that are entrusted to them, and be role models for students by behaving ethically and with integrity. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member by holding him accountable for his actions. The suspension will also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession by informing them that the improper administration of provincial tests is unacceptable.
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a member of the teaching profession and is intended to help him make better decisions in the future.
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 21, 2019
______________________________
Irene Dembek, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Josée Landriault
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Tom Potter
Member, Discipline Panel