DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Ferris 2020 ONOCT 128
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
Drew Trent Ferris, OCT a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
DREW TRENT FERRIS (REGISTRATION #449959)
PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair Marlène Marwah Sara Nouini, OCT
HEARD: February 4, 2020
Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jack Brown, for Drew Trent Ferris Erica Richler, 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 February 4, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Drew Trent Ferris (the “Member”) attended the hearing and 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. PUBLICATION ban
3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, 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.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated December 5, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member 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);1
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) 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);
(f) 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);2 and
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Drew Trent Ferris 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 Bluewater District School Board as a Construction Technology teacher at [XXX] School (the "School") in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3 were male students at the School.
In or around January 2018, the Member publicly mocked male Student 1 in front of the class about his attendance at school by:
(a) clapping when Student 1 came to class;
(b) demeaning Student 1 with words to the effect of, "Oh wow, you are here today. This is your third day in a row;" and
(c) asking other students how many days Student 1 had been absent, and then informing them of the actual number of days.
In or around January 2018, the Member also belittled Student 1 by breaking the leg off of a stool that Student 1 had made in order to demonstrate that Student 1 had cut the wood with the grain instead of against the grain. Student 1 was aware that he had made a mistake. When Student 1 asked, “What do you suggest I do?” the Member offered no suggestion as to how Student 1 could correct the mistake.
The Board investigated and found that the Member’s interactions with Student 1 had a negative impact on the positive learning environment in the classroom, and that Student 1 felt threatened, intimidated and anxious in his learning. On February 13, 2018, the Board issued a discipline letter. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter dated February 13, 2018.
On or about September 13, 2018, while on a school trip, the Member made inappropriate physical contact with students on a bus in order to manage their behaviour, including pinching Student 2 on the arm resulting in a bruise.
Bruce Grey Child and Family Services (the “CAFS”) investigated the September 13, 2018 incidents and verified some child protection concerns relating to the Member’s conduct with Student 2, but did not verify an allegation that the Member slapped another student (Student 3) on the face.
The CAFS also recommended that the Board undertake a review of its standards and procedures when it comes to managing youth behaviour, acceptable physical interactions with youth (including what is considered a restraint or hold), and supports for teachers on busses when students are misbehaving. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” and Appendix “D” respectively are copies of the CAFS’ letter to the Board dated November 17, 2018, and the CAFS’ letter to the Member dated November 20, 2018.
The September 13, 2018 incidents were also reported to and investigated by the Police. However, there were no criminal charges laid as neither Student 2 or Student 3, nor their parents, wished to pursue charges.
The Board investigated the matter and concluded that the Member’s physical response to the students’ behaviours was unacceptable. On December 4, 2018, the Board issued another discipline letter to the Member and suspended him retroactively for 3 days without pay. He was deemed to have served his suspension while he was on administrative leave during the Board’s investigation. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter dated December 4, 2018.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-11 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that 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(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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 the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between his counsel and counsel for 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.
D. DECISION
6Counsel 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) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Panel find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). These requests are appropriate as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 4, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member inappropriately disciplined his students by belittling Student 1 in front of the class and by pinching Student 2.
9The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. The ethical standard of “care” requires members to exhibit compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for developing students’ potential. Members of the profession are expected to express their commitment to students’ wellbeing and learning by exhibiting good professional judgment and empathy. By belittling Student 1 in front of his class and failing to show Student 1 how to properly do his work, the Member failed to exhibit the behaviours required by the Ethical Standards.
10The Member abused students physically contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1). The Member made physical contact with students on a bus in order to manage their behaviour. In particular, the Member pinched Student 2 on the arm, which resulted in a bruise.
11The Member abused Student 1 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Member made an example of Student 1 and mocked him in front of his class on two occasions. The Member’s behaviour was not constructive and had the effect of making Student 1 feel threatened, intimidated and anxious. Additionally, the Member’s conduct had a negative impact on the learning environment of the classroom.
12The Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, teachers are required to encourage pupils in the pursuit of learning. The Committee finds that the Member’s behaviour towards Student 1 was belittling, unhelpful, and in direct opposition to the Member’s duties.
13The Member’s conduct towards Student 1 and Student 2 was unprofessional. Members are expected to act in a professional manner and to exercise good judgment and compassion for students. The Member failed to act in a professional manner by making an example of Student 1 and by his inappropriate physical contact with Student 2.
14Similarly, the Member’s conduct toward Student 1 and Student 2 was unbecoming a member in that it harmed the reputation of the teaching profession, and the trust that the public places in members.
F. PENALTY DECISION
15The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 4, 2020 the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to 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”);
The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions and limitations is 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 regarding classroom management and appropriate communication with students. This 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, for each course, 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 each course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report 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.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
16The 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 be 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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Hutton, 2018 ONOCT 61, Ontario College of Teachers v. McPherson, 2019 ONOCT 11, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Turner, 2019 ONOCT 24. The Panel notes, however, that the misconduct cited in the above cases was more serious than the Member’s conduct.
17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are very few aggravating factors in this case. Most importantly, the Member was disciplined by the Board in February 2018 for his belittling conduct towards a student which had a negative impact on the Member’s classroom environment and, less than one year later, he went on to commit further misconduct with respect to another student.
18In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct in very short order and has saved the time and expense of a contested hearing. Further, CAFS recommended that the Board review their Standards and Procedures when it comes to managing youth behaviour and in particular, appropriate practises around supports for teachers on buses when youth are misbehaving. The Panel believes that this suggests there may have been pre-existing issues on the buses that are better dealt with by the Board and should not fall entirely on the Member. Through his counsel, the Member expressed sincere remorse, has shown awareness and has taken responsibility for his behaviour. Additionally, he has no prior disciplinary history with the College. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
19The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members are expected to serve as role models for students, to create safe and supportive learning environments for their students and to behave in accordance with the standards of the profession. The Member failed to do so by his misconduct. 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.
20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management and appropriate communication with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of their obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 7, 2020
Tom Potter Chair, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel