DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Nakhla 2020 ONOCT 153
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
Lydia Maurice Nakhla, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
LYDIA MAURICE NAKHLA (REGISTRATION #477616)
PANEL: Sara Nouini, OCT, Chair Marlène Marwah Stéphane Vallée, OCT
HEARD: February 24, 2020
Christine Lonsdale and Emilie Bruneau, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Lydia Maurice Nakhla was not represented
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 24, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Lydia Maurice Nakhla (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have 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. ORDER OF NON-PUBLICATION
3The Committee handed down a mandatory order of non-publication pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) directing that no person should 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 October 18, 2018 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Lydia Maurice Nakhla is guilty of professional misconduct or is incompetent as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);1
(b) 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);2
(c) she displayed in her professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of her students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
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:
Lydia Maurice Nakhla is a member of the College. Attached 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 Conseil scolaire catholique Providence (the “Board”) as a teacher. The Board hired the Member in September 2014.
In January 2015, the Member was assigned to a teaching position at [XXX]in[XXX], Ontario. In September 2015, the Member was assigned to a teaching position at[XXX], Ontario.
In April 2015, at[XXX], the Member was given a performance appraisal. She received an overall “Development Needed” appraisal rating. A copy of the summative report on the Member’s performance appraisal, dated April 27, 2015, is attached as Exhibit “B”.
Following the first performance appraisal, an Enrichment Plan was implemented for the Member. A copy of said Enrichment Plan, dated May 11, 2015, is attached as Exhibit “C”.
In September 2015, the Member was assigned to a teaching position at[XXX]. A new Enrichment Plan was implemented. A copy of said Enrichment Plan, dated September 23, 2015, is attached as Exhibit “D”.
In December 2015, the Member was given a second performance appraisal. She received an overall “Unsatisfactory” appraisal rating. A copy of the summative report on the Member’s performance appraisal, dated December 14, 2015, is attached as Exhibit “E”.
On December 21, 2015, the School Principal and the Superintendent recommended to the Director of Education that the Member’s employment be terminated without a third performance appraisal. A copy of the letter to the Director of Education, dated December 21, 2015, is attached as Exhibit “F”.
A recommendation to terminate the Member’s employment was prepared by the Director of Education and submitted to the Board on February 8, 2016. The Board dismissed the Member from her teaching duties effective February 8, 2016. A copy of the Board’s letter of notice to the Member, dated February 9, 2016, is attached as Exhibit “G”.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby pleads no contest to the allegation of incompetence, in that she displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of her students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations, as defined in section 30(3) of the Act.
The Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegation of incompetence 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 allegation, she is waiving the right to require the College to 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 Professionally Speaking/ Pour parler profession, the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and College Counsel with respect to penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she 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, chapter 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 aforementioned Uncontested Facts and plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Committee find that she displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of her students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that her certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that permission was being sought from the Discipline Panel to withdraw these allegations because the facts do not constitute professional misconduct. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 24, 2020, finding that the Member was incompetent as defined in section 30(3) of the Act, in that she displayed in her professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of a student of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute incompetence as defined in section 30(3) of the Act and are indicative of serious deficiencies in several fundamental domains of the Member’s teaching practice.
9The Member was given two performance appraisals as part of the New Teacher Induction Program (“NTIP”). She received an overall “Development Needed” appraisal rating for her first performance appraisal on April 27, 2015 at[XXX] in[XXX], Ontario. Following her first appraisal, the School Principal implemented an Enrichment Plan for the Member on May 11, 2015. The following school year, the Member was assigned to a position at[XXX], Ontario. A new Enrichment Plan was implemented for her on September 23, 2015. The Member was given a second performance appraisal on December 14, 2015, and received an overall “Unsatisfactory” appraisal rating. Following the second performance appraisal, the Board terminated the Member’s employment on February 8, 2016.
10The Member failed to improve her professional competencies despite the support she received from the administration. She experienced considerable difficulty in several fundamental domains of her teaching practice, including Commitment to Pupils and Pupil Learning, Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice.
11In the Panel’s estimation, the Member failed to respond to her students’ needs, especially with respect to mathematics learning. She often yelled or raised her voice in class and “blamed the students” for “being uncooperative.” In addition, she failed to adapt her lessons for students with an Individual Education Plan (“IEP”).
12With respect to her professional knowledge, the Member failed to transmit the concepts in the curriculum documents to her students. She did not use a variety of strategies to motivate them to improve their learning. The students had few or no notes about concepts taught in class and were often left to learn the concepts on their own.
13The Member’s poor classroom management jeopardized student health and safety. For example, after a scuffle in the classroom, one student sustained a concussion. Lastly, the Member failed to conduct ongoing assessments of her students, most of whom did not do their homework. The Member failed to follow up with students or their parents when students did not hand in their assignments, or concerning students’ progress.
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 24, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
- 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) Prior to filling or resuming a teaching position or any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration (a “teaching position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense, the following course which has been pre-approved by the Registrar:
(i) an Additional Qualification or Additional Basic Qualification course that covers teaching and learning strategies, assessment and evaluation of student learning, and classroom management.
(b) Within 30 days following her completion of the course described in (a) above, the Member shall provide the Registrar with proof in writing that she has successfully completed the course.
(c) At least 30 days prior to filling or resuming any teaching position, the Member shall inform the Registrar of the start date of the position, the name of her employer and the nature of the position.
(d) After filling or resuming any teaching position, the Member shall take all reasonable steps to have her employer conduct two appraisals of her performance within the first 12-month period, and shall provide the Registrar with acceptable proof that she has taken such steps. The Member shall also provide the Registrar with copies of her performance appraisal reports within 30 days after each appraisal. If the Member’s employer is unable or unwilling to conduct such performance appraisals, the Member shall immediately so inform the Registrar in writing.
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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Bruni, 2016 ONOCT 7, Ontario College of Teachers v. Thiaw, 2015 ONOCT 77 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Braam-Carew, 2017 ONOCT 33.
16The Panel finds that an Additional Qualification or Additional Basic Qualification course that covers teaching and learning strategies, assessment and evaluation of student learning, and classroom management will assist the Member in acquiring the competencies she needs to improve her teaching practice and become more mindful of the competencies required for teaching. It will also focus on her deficiencies and support her reintegration into the school environment. In addition, the Panel considers that the Member’s performance should be monitored closely for the first year after any resumption of her duties, to ensure that it continues to be satisfactory.
17The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 24, 2020
Sara Nouini, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel