DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Robinson 2020 ONOCT 161
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
William Beverley Robinson, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
WILLIAM BEVERLEY ROBINSON (REGISTRATION #450358)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Marlène Marwah Sara Nouini, OCT
HEARD: February 25, 2020
Christine Lonsdale and Nicholas Fitz, for the Ontario College of Teachers Geetha Philipupillai, for William Beverley Robinson Julie Maciura, 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 25, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2William Beverley Robinson (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 January 24, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that William Beverley Robinson 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 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 supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(f) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(g) 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);
(h) 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
(i) 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:
William Beverley Robinson 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 grades [XXX] –[XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Scarborough, Ontario.
On October 31, 2017, the Member was one of two chaperones for a group of grade [XXX] students from the School attending an overnight trip at the [XXX] [XXX] (“[XXX]”) near [XXX], Ontario.
While the other chaperone was away addressing a student medical emergency, the Member was left alone to supervise a group of students. The students were unruly, and their misbehaviour caused the Member to become frustrated.
On or about October 31, 2017, the Member:
(a) Referred to students as “jackasses”;
(b) Grabbed and/or held Student 1 by his shirt collar;
(c) Used inappropriate discipline including directing Student 2 to go outside in the dark alone without a flashlight to carry wood;
(d) Yelled at Student 2 and/or Student 3.
The Member was previously reprimanded by the Investigation Committee in 2012 for making inappropriate physical contact with a student. The Member also received a letter of expectations for losing his temper with another staff member in 2017.
On or about October 31, 2017, during his chaperoning students at the [XXX], the Member:
(a) Placed his hand on Student 2’s head and/or pushed the student’s head back;
(b) Grabbed and/or held Student 3 by the shirt;
(c) Pinched Student 3;
(d) Grabbed and/or held Student 4 by his arm.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibit referred to in paragraphs 1 – 7 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(7.1), 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 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 him and counsel for the College 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 under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, 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 25, 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(7.1), 1(7.2), 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 7 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 the Member verbally, physically, and psychologically or emotionally abused students by using physical force and inappropriate language and discipline to redirect students.
8The Member’s conduct fell below the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Among other things, members are required to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being (“Care”) and respect for students in their professional practice (“Respect”). The Member disciplined Grade [XXX] students by grabbing or holding them by their clothing or by the arm; placing his hand on, or pushing a student’s head back; pinching; yelling at students or calling them derogatory names (“jackasses”). The Member’s physical and verbal redirection of students in this manner is completely inappropriate and falls below the standards of the profession.
9The Member abused students verbally contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Though the Member was frustrated with the students’ unruly behaviour, yelling at Student 2 and/or Student 3 and calling students “jackasses” is verbally abusive. Members of the profession must address students with respect and refrain from calling students by derogatory names.
10The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member abused students physically, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member aggressively redirected students, grabbed or held them by their shirts or arm, placed his hand on or pushed a student’s head back and pinched a student. It is unacceptable for teachers to use physical force against students in order to discipline them.
11The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused a student contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Directing Student 2 to go outside in the dark without a flashlight and to carry wood as punishment is entirely inappropriate and unprofessional. The Panel agrees with the parties’ joint submission that this form of discipline is emotionally or psychologically abusive. This form of discipline, which could be frightening to a student, should not be used by members of the profession as members are expected to foster emotionally safe learning environments both inside and outside of the classroom.
12Sending Student 2 outdoors in the dark also demonstrates the Member’s failure to adequately supervise a student, contrary to subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. As one of the designated chaperones on the overnight [XXX] trip, the Member was entrusted to ensure the safety of all students under his professional supervision. Sending Student 2 outdoors alone demonstrated poor professional judgment and jeopardized Student 2’s safety.
13The Member’s conduct also demonstrates a failure to comply with the College’s by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member failed to meet the standards articulated in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, which are set out at section 32.02 of the by-laws.
14The Member’s verbally, physically and emotionally abusive interactions with students also contravene section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. This provision requires that teachers encourage students in the pursuit of learning and that they act as positive role models. The Member’s abusive conduct toward Student 1, Student 2, Student 3 and Student 4, and his inappropriate punishment of Student 2, as described above, demonstrate the opposite. The Member’s abusive interactions with students were discouraging and modeled unacceptable ways to communicate with others.
15The Member’s abusive conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member failed to act in the best interest of students by yelling at them, calling them names, and using inappropriate and unprofessional forms of discipline, including the use of force against students.
16Finally, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, in that it undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and violates the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.
F. PENALTY Decision
17The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 25, 2020 the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order. The Panel:
directs that the Member appear before the Committee within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
directs the Registrar 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 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 is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1;
directs the Registrar 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 90 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 appropriate discipline, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the 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, Reasons for Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 3(a)(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 form 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
18The 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. Hyde, 2016 ONOCT 25, and Ontario College of Teachers v. O’Shea, 2017 ONOCT 8.
19The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The key aggravating factor in the Member’s case is the repeated nature of his misconduct. The College and the Member’s employer previously made him aware that his behaviour was unacceptable, but he subsequently engaged in similar misconduct. In 2012, the College’s Investigation Committee addressed the Member’s concerning behaviour involving inappropriate physical contact with a student and, in 2017, the Member received a letter of expectation for losing his temper in an incident involving a staff member. It is also an aggravating factor that the Member’s misconduct in this case involved several students. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member came to an agreement with the College, sparing student witnesses from having to testify and 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.
20The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Member addressed student misbehaviour in a way that was verbally, physically and emotionally abusive, which is unacceptable. 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.
21Given the Member’s aggressive interventions with students, the Panel finds that a four-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the Panel recognizes that the circumstances of the overnight [XXX] trip were challenging, teachers must keep their composure and interact professionally with students at all times, which the Member failed to do. Teachers are expected to provide a safe learning environment and to maintain appropriate boundaries with students. The Panel is particularly concerned that the Member, when frustrated, resorted to physical force to manage an unruly group of Grade [XXX] students and that he disciplined a student in an emotionally abusive manner. 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 in this range 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.
22The Panel finds that a course of instruction regarding classroom management and appropriate discipline will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his duties as a teacher and help him develop professional strategies for managing student misbehaviour that will inform his future interactions with students.
23The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Date: March 3, 2020