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 Marc-André Coulombe, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MARC-ANDRÉ COULOMBE (REGISTRATION #422559)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Josée Landriault, OCT Marlène Marwah
HEARD: September 17, 2019
Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Lise Leduc, for Marc-André Coulombe Renée A. Kopp, 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 was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on September 17, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”), in Toronto.
An initial Notice of Hearing dated July 31, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Marc-André Coulombe (the “Member”) requesting his presence on September 25, 2017 to set a date for the hearing and specifying the charges. Subsequently, a second Notice of Hearing dated January 14, 2019 (Exhibit 2) was served on the Member, asking him to participate in the scheduling of a hearing and specifying the charges. College Counsel informed the Panel that the parties agreed to hold a single hearing on the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the two notices of hearing. As a result, pursuant to section 9.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, the Panel granted the request, and a single hearing was held to address the allegations set out in Exhibits 1 and 2.
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.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notices of Hearing are as follows:
Notice of Hearing dated July 31, 2017
IT IS ALLEGED that Marc-André Coulombe 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 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(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);
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
Notice of Hearing dated January 14, 2019
IT IS ALLEGED that Marc-André Coulombe is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in 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);
(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) 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);
(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(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);
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Counsel for the College presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 3), related to the two Notices of Hearing, which provides the following:
Mr. Coulombe is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. 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 Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est de l’Ontario (“the Board”) as a Grade [XXX] teacher at [XXX] (“the School”) in Orléans, Ontario.
May 2015 Incidents
In March 2015, after an [XXX], the Member returned to a teaching position at the School.
As part of his gradual return to work, the Member was to observe an occasional teacher while he was teaching the Grade [XXX] class to which the Member had been assigned as [XXX] teacher.
On May 7, 2015, after asking Student 1 three times to get to work because she was disrupting the class, the Member yelled at Student 1 to speak more quietly in class.
The Member and Student 1 went into the corridor. The Member was angry and raised his voice. When Student 1 went back into the classroom, the Member yelled at her again. Student 1 started to cry and went to the vice-principal’s office.
On or around May 15 and/or May 18, 2015, the Member had altercations with two Grade [XXX] students, Student 2 and Student 3. Student 3 was reading while listening to music, and the Member intervened to find out what he was doing. When Student 3 complained, the Member sent him into the corridor. Student 2 intervened to defend Student 3. The Member and Student 2 were yelling in front of the whole class. The Member made Student 2 leave the classroom. The Member said: “Fuck that, that’s not acceptable.”
On June 19, 2015, following the incidents in May 2015 and an investigation by the Board [sic], the Member received a disciplinary letter and a five-day suspension. Attached as “Appendix B” is a copy of the disciplinary letter dated June 19, 2015. Following the settlement of a grievance filed by the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens on behalf of the Member, the suspension was reduced to one day.
Incidents during the 2015-2016 Academic Year
On or about October 28, 2015, when some of the Grade [XXX] students in his class had to present projects, the Member yelled at the students who were not prepared despite the many reminders and follow-ups that the Member had given them. When Student 4 picked up the stapler, the Member yelled, “Give it to me. You’re not listening.”
On or about November 4, 2015, on a bad weather day when some students were working independently in his classroom, the Member fell asleep in the classroom.
On April 15, 2016, a student in the Member’s class asked Student 5 for a pair of scissors and threw them back to Student 5. The two students were noisy. The Member yelled at Student 5 that he was disrupting the class. When Student 5 refused to leave the classroom, the Member told him he was “impertinent.” The Member slammed the door of the classroom behind Student 5.
Following the incidents during the 2015-2016 academic year, the Board conducted an investigation. On June 24, 2016, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a seven-day suspension. Attached as “Appendix C” is a copy of the disciplinary letter dated June 24, 2016. Following the settlement of a grievance filed by the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens on behalf of the Member, the suspension was reduced to three days.
Incidents during the 2016-2017 Academic Year
On February 7, 2017, the Member got angry with his Grade [XXX] class. He told Student 6 that she was disrespectful and talked constantly to justify herself. Student 6 started to cry and left the classroom for another teacher’s classroom. The Member came to the classroom and blocked the doorway by standing in it. The other teacher intervened and the Member left the classroom. Student 6 was crying.
During the 2016-2017 academic year:
(a) The Member would sometimes put on his headphones and mark work in class at his computer while the students worked quietly on a work sheet or did homework;
(b) The Member left the students alone in the classroom at lunch on at least three occasions while he went out to get his lunch.
On February 13, 2017, the Member yelled at Student 7 when another student made her laugh. The Member continued to yell at Student 7 while she was talking to Student 8 about the marking of their work. The Member continued to yell at Student 7 when another student was looking for his papers in Student 7’s school bag. She started to cry.
When Student 8 tried to console Student 7, who was crying, the Member said to Student 8, “Don’t tell me this class is turning into a soap opera.”
On March 28, 2017, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a five-day suspension. After a grievance, the suspension was reduced to three days. Attached as “Appendix D” is a copy of the disciplinary letter dated March 28, 2017.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member acknowledges that he does not contest the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, concerning breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct 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 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 Pour parler profession/Professionally Speaking, the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between the College and the Member with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(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 of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Act 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 plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
With the Member’s consent, and in accordance with section 9.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, College Counsel asked the Panel to combine the Notices of Hearing dated July 31, 2017 and January 14, 2019 to settle this matter in a single hearing. The Panel granted the request.
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 17, 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(7.2), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 17 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 Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The uncontested facts demonstrate that between 2015 and 2017, on numerous occasions, the Member verbally abused students to the point of making them cry. In addition, he made inappropriate remarks, fell asleep in the classroom and left students unsupervised. His conduct was dishonourable, unprofessional and inconsistent with a teacher’s position. The Board suspended him three times because of his conduct, but he continued to yell at students instead of following appropriate classroom management methods. He failed to ensure a safe environment for student learning and was not a role model for students. The Panel agrees that the allegations of professional misconduct have been proven.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
In a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), 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 Discipline Committee within six months following the date of the order to receive an oral reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the College, at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the public register.
direct the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of three (3) months, commencing on the 15th calendar day following the oral decision of the Discipline Committee in this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the public register.
direct the Registrar to impose the following conditions or restrictions on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the public register:
(a) Within one hundred and twenty (120) days following the date of this order, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course pre-approved by the Registrar on classroom management and anger management that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide a course provider approved by the Registrar with a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the Joint Submission on Penalty filed as evidence at the hearing into this matter and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) after reviewing the documents mentioned in paragraph (i) above, the course provider shall submit to the Registrar, for his approval, a curriculum for the proposed course which specifically addresses the concerns of the Discipline Committee regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The curriculum proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of said course and its objectives;
(b) Within thirty (30) days following his completion of the above-mentioned course, the Member shall provide the Registrar with written proof from the course provider stating that:
(i) the Member has successfully completed the course and describing the Member’s progress in relation to the objectives of the course.
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision rendered on September 17, 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 proportional to the Member’s misconduct 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. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48, Ontario College of Teachers v. Chong Yen, 2018 ONOCT 56 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Chong Yen, 2019 ONOCT 28.
The Committee finds that the member’s conduct warrants a reprimand from his peers. The fact that the member yelled at his students several times is a source of concern for the Committee, because such conduct is intimidating. The reprimand will allow the Committee to raise its concerns directly 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 a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. The Member demonstrated a lack of consideration for the psychological well-being of his students and failed on several occasions to ensure a safe learning environment that promoted the students’ learning. The length of the suspension falls within an acceptable range, based on similar decisions of the Committee presented by College Counsel.
The Committee considers that the course on classroom management and anger management will contribute to the Member’s rehabilitation process. It will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in his 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: October 16, 2019
______________________________
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Josée Landriault, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel