DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Gartshore 2020 ONOCT 143
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
Stephen Owen Gartshore, OCT a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
STEPHEN OWEN GARTSHORE (REGISTRATION #417889)
PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair Sara Nouini, OCT Stéphane Vallée, OCT
HEARD: January 21, 2020
Christine Wadsworth and Vincent DeMarco, for the Ontario College of Teachers Heather Ann McConnell, for Stephen Owen Gartshore Rebecca Durcan, 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 January 21, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Stephen Owen Gartshore (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 June 28, 2018 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Stephen Owen Gartshore 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);1
(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 an act or 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).
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:
Stephen Owen Gartshore 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.
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.
At all material times, the Student was a Grade [XXX] male student in the Member’s [XXX] class who had an [XXX] (“XXX”) and who was [XXX].
Inappropriate Conduct and Comments:
- On or about April 26, 2017, the Member, while frustrated with the Student because of his lack of progress:
(a) struck his hand down on the Student’s desk and on to work that was on the Student’s desk;
(b) spoke to the Student with a loud, raised voice because the student did not complete his seatwork;
(c) compared the student to the student’s [XXX], which caused the student to feel isolated and made the student cry;
(d) allowed the Student to leave his classroom without supervision and did not notify the homeroom teacher, the Principal or the parents of the Student about the incident.
- Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice of the Teaching Profession. The Member recognizes that the conduct set out in paragraph 4 is inconsistent with these standards.
Board Investigation and Conclusions:
The Board conducted an investigation and the Member was disciplined by the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s Letter to the Member dated May 29, 2017.
As a result of the discipline by the Board, the Member attended anger management counselling.
Prior History with the College:
On or about June 25, 2013, the Member received a written caution from the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers. The Member denied the allegations. The Investigation Committee cautioned the Member not to use inappropriate language in the presence of grade [XXX] students. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Investigation Committee and the Caution issued to the Member dated June 25, 2013.
On June 3, 2015, the Member received a written admonishment from the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers in respect of allegations that the Member raised his voice and made inappropriate comments to students in his grade [XXX] class on several occasions. It was also alleged that the Member discussed the Sandy Hook school shooting tragedy with a grade [XXX], grade [XXX] and grade [XXX] class in detail, without parental consent, and went beyond the Board’s recommended guidelines. The Member denied any misconduct in respect of these allegations. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Investigation Committee and the Admonishment issued to the Member dated June 3, 2015.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18), 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 otherwise 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 counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel submitted that proceeding under both 1(14) and 1(5) would be duplicative based on the facts outlined in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. As such, College Counsel requested that subsection 1(14) be withdrawn. The Panel accepted College Counsel’s submission and granted this request.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on January 21, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. The Member 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 acted inappropriately and failed to display sensitivity to the Student’s [XXX]. The fact that the Member raised his voice to the Student and struck his hand down on the Student’s desk is particularly troubling behaviour toward a student who is [XXX].
9The ethical standard of “care” includes compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for developing students’ potential. Members of the profession are expected to express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. The Member’s behaviour in this case did not meet this standard.
10The Committee accepts that the Member’s behaviour constituted psychological or emotional abuse of the Student. The Member inappropriately compared the student to his [XXX], which made the Student cry and feel isolated.
11The Committee accepts that the 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 intimidating behaviour towards the Student and his comparison of the Student to the Student’s [XXX] were discouraging and contrary to the requirements set out at section 264(1) of the Education Act.
12The Committee further accepts that the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. Members are expected to act in a professional manner and to exercise good judgment and compassion for students. The Committee finds that by intimidating the Student and by speaking to the Student in a raised voice, the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
13Similarly, the Member’s conduct toward the Student was unbecoming a member in that it undermined the reputation of the teaching profession, and the trust that the public places in members.
F. PENALTY DECISION
14The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on January 21, 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 St. West, 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 is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member 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 the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register. If the oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1;
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 60 days of the date of the 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 and discipline, 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 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.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
15The 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 specifically on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Chong Yen, 2019 ONOCT 28, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Vandenberg, 2018 ONOCT 15. These decisions established that the appropriate penalty for misconduct similar to the behaviour in this case is a reprimand, coursework, and a suspension in the range of one to four months.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases noted above. The Panel took note of several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member had been put on notice by the Investigation Committee regarding concerns about inappropriate behaviour in June 2013 and in June 2015. Although the Member denied the conduct, he was given a Caution and an Admonishment by the Investigation Committee and yet, in April of 2017 he was found to have engaged in similar misconduct. Second, the Member’s behaviour has led to emotional harm for the Student. Finally, yelling at a [XXX] young student is particularly unsavoury and offensive behaviour by the Member. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his 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.
17The 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 a 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 also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
18The course of instruction regarding classroom management and discipline is intended to assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The Panel recognizes that the Member has already completed a course with respect to anger management. The additional coursework regarding classroom management and discipline will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
19Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a two-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The cases noted above defined the appropriate range of suspension at one to four months. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct falls in the middle of this range. 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.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: January 22, 2020
Tom Potter Chair, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel