DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Black 2020 ONOCT 152
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
Adrian Michael Black, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ADRIAN MICHAEL BLACK (REGISTRATION #400220)
PANEL: Godwin Ifedi, Chair
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
HEARD: February 5, 2020
Christine Wadsworth and Vincent DeMarco, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Jack Brown, for Adrian Michael Black
Renée 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.
1This matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on February 5, 2020, at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Adrian Michael Black (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 February 7, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Adrian Michael Black 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(c) 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);
(d) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(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); and
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Adrian Michael Black 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 Upper Canada District School Board (the “Board”) as a high school teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member taught Grade [XXX] at the School.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3 were male students in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] Class.
On or about March 8, 2017, Student 1 was standing or sitting on top of a set of “prop blocks”, cubes that were used in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] Class. The Member engaged in inappropriate physical contact in grabbing Student 1 and pulling him off the blocks.
On or about March 8, 2017, the Member had physical contact with Student 1 and Student 2 in pushing and/or blocking Student 1 and Student 2 in an exterior doorway at the back of the [XXX] classroom.
Student 1 and Student 2 ended up outside, the exterior door was closed and locked. Student 1 and Student 2 were consequently left unsupervised outside.
While Student 1 and Student 2 were outside and unsupervised, they were involved in a physical altercation with Student 3. Student 3 was injured as a result of this altercation and had a bloody nose. Student 3 re-entered the classroom with the bloody nose and the Member either failed to inquire about or failed to appropriately report the fact and cause of Student 3’s injuries in a timely manner.
These incidents were later reported to the School administration, who investigated. On the same day, March 9, 2017, the Member was assigned to home duties with pay in order for the Board to investigate. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the School’s correspondence to the Member dated March 9, 2017.
The Board determined that the Member’s actions and behaviour towards students was unacceptable, both under the Board’s Violence in the Workplace Policy, the Board’s Code of Conduct, and in violation of the Ethical Standards and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession.
The Board suspended the Member for one day without pay on May 26, 2017. The Member was required to complete an anger management course by June 1, 2017. Prior to returning to a teaching position, the Member was also required to complete a Classroom Management course through the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation by June 15, 2017. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s correspondence to the Member dated May 25, 2017. The Member completed both of these courses.
The Member has prior discipline history with the College. On or about March 10, 2016, the Member was alleged to have engaged in inappropriate physical contact with a student. The Member received a caution from the Investigation Committee on March 29, 2017 and was warned to avoid any physical contact with students, and to avoid situations that could be interpreted as physical abuse. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Investigation Committee’s decision and the caution.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-12 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
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 him being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 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 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 otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct.
(e) 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;
(f) he understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and himself/herself [sic] with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) 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 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.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 5, 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(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 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 professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that, during the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member grabbed Student 1 and pulled him off a set of “prop blocks” used in his [XXX] class. He blocked and/or pushed Students 1 and 2 in an exterior doorway at the back of the [XXX] class such that the students ended up outside the School and unsupervised. While they were outside and unsupervised, Students 1 and 2 were involved in an altercation with Student 3, as a result of which Student 3 was injured. The Member failed to inquire about and report Student 3’s injuries.
8The Member’s misconduct in the present case fell below the standards of the profession, which require members to demonstrate their commitment to students’ wellbeing. The Member’s conduct also breached the by-laws of the College, which includes the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. By engaging in physical abuse of Students 1 and 2 and not responding appropriately to the injury of Student 3, the Member failed to maintain the ethical standard of “care”.
9The Member’s conduct constitutes physical abuse in that he made inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 by grabbing and pulling Student 1 and by pushing and/or blocking Students 1 and 2 in a doorway. Members of the profession are expected to conduct themselves in a composed and professional manner and they must not resort to the inappropriate use of physical force against students.
10The Member failed to supervise adequately a person who was under his professional supervision by leaving Students 1 and 2 outside the School unsupervised. He furthermore failed to inquire about or report Student 3’s injuries in a timely manner after he learned about them.
11The Member’s conduct breached section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Teachers must “encourage pupils in the pursuit of learning” and maintain proper order and discipline in their classrooms. The Member’s rough behaviour with Student 1 and Student 2 was at odds with his duties as a teacher. The Member ought to have communicated effectively with his students rather than resorting to physical contact.
12The Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. He demonstrated a lack of professional judgment by physically abusing students and failing to supervise students under his professional supervision.
13Finally, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member in that it undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust that the public places in members of the profession.
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 February 5, 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 suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four 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.
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 180 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 professional boundaries, classroom management and anger management, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a 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 and Reasons 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 on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Green-Johnson, 2018 ONOCT 30, Ontario College of Teachers v. Green-Johnson, 2016 ONOCT 20, Ontario College of Teachers v. MacAdam, 2019 ONOCT 3, Ontario College of Teachers v. Gray, 2017 ONOCT 104, Ontario College of Teachers v. O’Shea, 2017 ONOCT 8, Ontario College of Teachers v. O’Shea, 2016 ONOCT 84, Ontario College of Teachers v. Dayfoot, 2018 ONOCT 73, Ontario College of Teachers v. Goodfellow, 2019 ONOCT 59 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Stodola, 2018 ONOCT 22.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the serious nature of the misconduct, which involved inappropriate physical contact with students, and the fact that the Member’s failure to adequately supervise students resulted in a student’s injury. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member pleaded no contest to the allegations of misconduct, thus saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and the Member’s misconduct occurred in one class on one day. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Member has no prior history before the Discipline Committee in his 30 years of teaching, although he has previously received a caution from the College’s Investigation Committee for similar misconduct. 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 and to create a safe and supportive learning environment for their students. 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.
18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a four-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases 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.
19The Panel takes note that the Member has completed a classroom management course and an anger management course as ordered by the Board. The Panel finds that a further course of instruction regarding professional boundaries, classroom management and anger management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 14, 2020
Godwin Ifedi
Chair, Discipline Panel
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel