Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Antonenko 2019 ONOCT 79

Date: 2019-08-26

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

Annie Antonenko, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ANNIE ANTONENKO (REGISTRATION #257199)

PANEL: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair Sara Nouini, OCT Jonathan Rose

HEARD: August 26, 2019

Stephanie Sugar, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Jack Brown, for Annie Antonenko

Julie Maciura, 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.

1This matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on August 26, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).

2Annie Antonenko (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. THE ALLEGATIONS

3The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated August 24, 2017 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Annie Antonenko is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:

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

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

(c) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

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

(e) she failed to supervise adequately a person who is under her professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

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

B. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

4College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Annie Antonenko 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).

3. At all material times, the Students were students at the School.

4. During the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 school years, the Member demonstrated inappropriate behaviour toward her students, including:

(a) Belittling, embarrassing and making fun of students;

(b) Yelling at students;

(c) Making sarcastic and racist comments to students;

(d) Swearing at students;

(e) Refusing students entry into her classroom;

(f) Setting unreasonable classroom hours and conditions;

(g) Failing to provide feedback on student work;

(h) Leaving students unsupervised.

Inappropriate Comments and Classroom Conduct

5. During the 2013 – 2015 school years the School Administration received a number of unsolicited reports from students concerning the Member. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the School’s notes and chronology of these reports.

6. On or about January 15, 2014, Student 1, the Member’s male student, complained about fearing the member and feeling discouraged.

7. On or about January 21, 2014, Student 2, the Member’s male student, was not allowed to have an energy drink in class. The Member used words to the effect of “don’t be an idiot” and slammed a book on his desk.

8. On or about January 21, 2014, Student 3, the Member’s female student, said the Member only helped students with good attendance and that she is sarcastic.

9. On or about January 30, 2014, Student 4, the Member’s female student, went to the office crying. The student complained that Member was mean to her and does not like her. When the student did some work, the Member instructed her to put it in a binder. When the student tried to hand the binder to the Member she would not take it.

10. On or about February 7, 2014, the Member sent Student 5 to the hallway. The Member said that certain students should not be in that [XXX] class due to their level. The student tried to express his opinion but the Member lost her cool. The student said that he has to be there because of parole. The Member then said to the student that his other option is “jail”.

11. On or about March 27, 2014, a retired guidance counsellor was doing course selection visits and was in the Member’s class. He noted that she was demeaning and belittling to students.

12. On or about May 29, 2014, Student 6, the Member’s male student, said the Member treated him like a child. He also said the Member does not let [XXX] students talk to each other in class and she is not sincere and gives them a “fake” smile.

13. On or about December 10, 2014, Student 7, the Member’s female student, said that the Member is a hypocrite. She does not let students eat in class but does herself, and does not respect students. She also said the Member likes to embarrass people.

14. On or about February 2, 2015, the Member had been trying to block certain [XXX] students from being in her class. The Member was reminded by the Administration that the [XXX] population can be vulnerable and need extra support.

15. In the 2015-2016 school year the concern of students continued to be reported to school administration.

16. On or about September 16, 2015, Student 8, the Member’s Student, said that the Member was rude, sarcastic and shames students. Student 8 wanted to drop the class to avoid further abuse.

17. In an around September 2015, the Member repeatedly failed to let students drink in class, including in [XXX] class.

18. On or about October 29, 2015, the Member’s Filipino students said the Member was mean and does not let them speak Tagalog and deducts marks when they speak in their language. When work is handed in, the students complained that the Member did not give proper feedback.

19. On or about November 20, 2015, five [XXX] students went to the Principal’s office after school to voice concerns that the Member is unapproachable, treated them like children, is insincere and acted like something was bothering her.

20. On or about December 10, 2015, the Principal and Vice-Principal were in the Counsellor’s office when they heard a whistle going off. Upon investigating further, they realized it was coming from the Member’s classroom. The next day the Principal asked the Member about the whistle incident and she admitting to using it the classroom as a means to get students to be quiet [sic].

21. On or about December 11, 2015, Student 9, the Member’s male student, was taken to the guidance office by the Member complaining that he used the phone too much and did not do work. After the Member left, the student cried and said he was terrified of the Member, and that she was mean, bothered him in the hall saying words to the effect of “why didn’t you go to class?”, “why didn’t you sign in?”

22. In and around January 2016, the Member made belittling and sarcastic comments to students who asked to use the washroom.

23. On or about January 27, 2016, Student 10, the Member’s female student, complained to administration about the Member being verbally abusive, making derogatory, sarcastic and racist remarks towards her. The student switched out of the Member’s class and since then, the Member provoked her with comments like “you piece of shit”, “Disrespectful”, “Useless”.

Physical Contact with Students

24. On or about February 8, 2016, the Member forcefully grabbed Student 11’s arm and scolded him for dropping garbage into the compost.

Failure to Supervise

25. On or about November 4, 2015, twelve of the Member’s [XXX] students were not allowed to join the class by the Member after they returned from a field trip. The Member left the class unsupervised to ask the field trip teacher for confirmation.

Prior Warnings and Discipline

26. The Member had been repeatedly warned and counselled about her conduct, in particular for her tone with students, inappropriate and sarcastic remarks, and belittling and condescending comments.

27. Additionally, the Member was frequently late, failed to adhere to administrative guidelines, and failure to properly mark and submit students’ work [sic].

28. These meetings resulted in numerous statements of expectation over the course of the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 academic years. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the School’s notes from these meetings.

29. Following further complaints by students in and around January and February 2016, as outlined above, the School had a further investigative meeting with the Member. It was concluded that the accounts of Students 10 and 11 were found to be true, and that there remains an overall concern with the Member’s conduct and interactions with students. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the School’s notes from the February 3, 2016 meeting.

30. The Member was disciplined, and suspended for three days in March 2016 as a result. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

31. By this document, the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-30 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

32. 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 her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19).

33. By this document, the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

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

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

(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest voluntarily, unequivocally, and with/without the advice of legal counsel.

34. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee 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

35. 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.

C. DECISION

5Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on August 26, 2019 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

D. REASONS FOR DECISION

6The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 30 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of completely inappropriate behaviour towards her students. She was repeatedly disrespectful and insensitive towards her students, especially those with a diverse cultural background. Among other things, she belittled and demeaned students. She made sarcastic and racist comments to students. She yelled and swore at students. She refused students entry into her classroom and set unreasonable classroom hours and conditions. She forcefully grabbed a student’s arm. The Member also failed to provide feedback on student work and left students unsupervised.

7Engaging in such inappropriate behaviour is a clear breach of the standards of the profession and is a clear abuse of her authority as a teacher. Her behaviour towards the students constitutes verbal, physical and psychological abuse. She contravened subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by leaving students unsupervised. She contravened section 264(1) of the Education Act by failing to act as an appropriate role model. Her behaviour was disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unbecoming of a member.

E. PENALTY Decision

8The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on August 26, 2019, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter, or within 90 days of the date of this Order on a date to be arranged by the Member, 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”);

2. The Registrar is directed 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 90 days prior to the date the Member returns to or commences a position for which a Certificate of Qualification is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding maintaining appropriate professional boundaries with students, classroom management, and diversity and sensitivity training, subject to the following conditions;

(i) the Member will provide to the 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 Orders 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 thirty (30) days of her 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.

3. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 5 months commencing 15 days following the date of this Order, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.

F. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

9The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’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 Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Towler, 2015 ONOCT 79, Ontario College of Teachers v. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48, Ontario College of Teachers v. Fernandes, 2018 ONOCT 31,Ontario College of Teachers v. Fernandes, 2019 ONOCT 13, Ontario College of Teachers v. Green-Johnson, 2018 ONOCT 30 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Odjig,, 2018 ONOCT 27.

10The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are her prolonged pattern of inappropriate behaviour over a three-year period despite repeated warnings by the administration of her School, her complete disregard of the fact that her students were vulnerable and needed extra support and the negative impact which her actions had on the students. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

11The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct, despite warnings from the School, warrants a reprimand by her peers. Members are expected to serve as role models for students. They are expected to create a safe and supportive environment for learning, which the Member failed to do by belittling and demeaning students, among other things. The reprimand will allow the Panel 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.

12The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding appropriate professional boundaries with students, classroom management, and diversity and sensitivity training, will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

13Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a five-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The cases provided by the parties confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable.

14The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.