DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Ontario College of Teachers v Nabben 2020 ONOCT 166

Date: 2020-05-11

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

John Anthony Clark Nabben, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JOHN ANTHONY CLARK NABBEN (REGISTRATION #482220)

PANEL: Jonathan Rose, Chair John Hamilton, OCT Sara Nouini, OCT

HEARD: May 7, 2020

Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Kirsty Niglas-Collins, for John Anthony Clark Nabben

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 May 7, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). With the consent of the parties, and in accordance with section 3 of the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 5, Sched 3, this matter proceeded by way of an electronic hearing.

2John Anthony Clark Nabben (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation who attended on his behalf. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

3Three Notices of Hearing dated August 24, 2017 (Exhibit 1), August 6, 2019 (Exhibit 2), and March 2, 2020 (Exhibit 3) were served on the Member, specifying the allegations and requesting his presence on a date to be determined for the hearing. The hearing with respect to the allegations set out in Exhibits 1-3 was subsequently set for May 7, 2020. The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations of professional misconduct set out in all Notices of Hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

4The 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

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated August 24, 2017 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that John Anthony Clark Nabben 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);¹

(b) he released or disclosed information about a student to a person other than the student or, if the student is a minor, the student’s parent or guardian, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(6);

(c) he abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(d) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(e) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(f) he failed to supervise adequately a person or persons under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

(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).

6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated August 6, 2019 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that John Anthony Clark Nabben 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);²

(d) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(e) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(f) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(g) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;³

(h) 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);

(i) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(j) 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);

(k) 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);

(l) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

7The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated March 2, 2020 (Exhibit 3) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that John Anthony Clark Nabben 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);⁴

(c) he abused a student or students physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(d) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(e) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(f) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(g) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;⁵

(h) 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);

(i) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(l) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

8College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 4), which provides the following:

John Anthony Clark Nabben 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.
At all material times, between the 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 academic years, the Member was employed by the Greater Essex District School Board as a dramatic arts teacher at [XXX] in Windsor, Ontario.
At all material times, the Member taught at the School between 2006 and 2016. Students auditioned in Grade [XXX] to gain entry into the arts program at the School. Students who gained entry into the dramatic arts program could be enrolled in the Member’s class and/or participate in productions that the Member directed from Grades [XXX].
In addition, for a portion of 2006-2016, the Member also ran his own community theatre company. The Member asked some of his high school students to perform in his company’s shows in addition to the School performances.

Teaching Methods and Comments

During the material times, the Member engaged in inappropriate teaching methods for high school drama students as well as using inappropriate language and profanity towards students.
The Member made the following comments to incoming Grade [XXX] students. He told students that:

(a) he was not gay; and

(b) they had “shit up their asses” and “had to let it go”

When the Member was unhappy with a student’s performance in class, either during rehearsal, or on stage, he would demean and put down students by using inappropriate language. This language included:

(a) referring to a performance as “awful”;

(b) telling students they didn’t know what they were doing and should leave the drama program;

(d) telling students they “dropped the ball” on the performance;

(e) telling students they would never make it in the acting industry;

(f) referring to students as “worthless,” “talentless,” “stupid,” “idiot,” and “terrible actors,” “crap,” and “piece of shit”;

(g) telling a student, “you’re not getting it, you’re not talented enough”;

(h) telling a student he was “done” with her and/or slammed the classroom door in her face when she tried to enter the class;

(i) yelling at a Grade [XXX] female student to “figure out [her] own shit” in front of the class;

(j) laughing at students when monologues were not performed in the manner the Member expected.

The Member used profanity in class. It was common place for the Member to use words during his class or rehearsals such as: “shit-sandwich,” “you dance like shit,” “bitch,” “fuck,” “are you fucking kidding me,” and “fucking retard”.
During classroom conversations with students and during rehearsals, the Member shared his negative opinions about current and/or former students.
The Member incorporated inappropriate games and/or exercises in class which included the following:

(a) The “Chair” game – students were required to describe both the positive and the negative impact of a student within the class that the Member seated on the chair. This resulted to the student seated on the chair becoming upset and crying;

(b) The “Numbers” game – the Member would call a number and the students would move into the group with that number. The Member would then grab the student’s legs and/or arms and pull the student from the group;

(c) The “Fuck” exercise – during a monologue, the Member asked students to use this exercise to relax. The Member told students to use the word “Fuck” as many times as possible with the object being to help the students to relax;

(d) “Vote off the Island” exercise – this exercise was used to see which students should be asked to leave the class because they did not work hard enough. The exercise was used by the Member to put students against other students which created a toxic environment among classmates. On one occasion, the Member used this exercise to determine which two students would not participate in the [XXX] presentation at School. Students in class “voted” to determine which two students should not participate.

The Member focused on certain students. He called them his “Nabbenites”. He also ignored or ostracized other students who disappointed or displeased him. The Member permitted students to refer to him with nick names such as “papa bird,” “sweet baby poo,” “nabby pooh,” and/or “my nabben”.
On occasion, the Member met with students individually behind closed doors to engage in personal conversations. For example, on one occasion when the Member discussed a female student’s personal life with her, he told her that she was “spoiled” and that her mother was “too involved” with her personal life. On another occasion, the Member told a female student, that if she “jumped out the window, no one would notice as [she] was an introvert”.
During instructional time, the Member:

(a) removed students from class without appropriate permission and sent students on errands for the drama program without appropriate authorization from either the School administration or the student’s parents;

(b) permitted students to use his personal vehicle during class times;

(c) permitted students to leave school grounds, including to go to Tim Horton’s or for a walk, instead of attending class or after completing their work, and on at least one occasion, told students that if they got caught, he would deny having permitted them to leave;

(d) singled students out in front of other students in class when they missed their cues and/or pointed out their weak points;

(e) told students not to share information with their parents and/or threatened to remove and/or removed students from productions if their parents interfered.

When the Member became upset with students, he would put students against each other and tell students that they were not to speak to other students in class.
The Member told a male student in his class that the student’s [XXX] was “poisoning” the student against the Member. He used the words “fucking mother fuckers” in reference to a student’s [XXX] and asked the student what the people at his [XXX] were saying about the Member. The Member also referred to the individuals at the [XXX] as “back-stabbers”.

Lack of Supervision

On occasion, the Member arrived late for classes and rehearsals. Also, on occasion, the Member did not attend classes at all. When the Member did conduct classroom lessons and finished the lessons early, he would allow students to leave the class and/or the School unsupervised during school hours and without the knowledge of the School administration or parents.
On occasion, the Member directed the Grade [XXX] students to teach the Grade [XXX] students the curriculum and/or a lesson.

Assessment Practices

The Member did not provide students with rubrics, constructive feedback and assessment tools. The Member gave some students high grades which did not correspond with their work and/or assignment marks.
The Member did not mark assignments and/or assignments were not returned to students. The Member had difficulty with planning his classes. Students would often move set pieces from one location to another for both school productions and private shows during instructional time.

Electronic Communications

The Member asked students for their personal cell phone numbers and also provided his cell phone number to students. He encouraged students to contact him via email, text message or phone call. The Member cultivated a personal relationship with certain students and as a result the Member failed to maintain appropriate boundaries between himself and his students.
The Member engaged in inappropriate electronic communications with certain students to whom he showed favour. These electronic communications occurred over the phone or via email and text messages and were often outside of school hours, including evenings and late at night. They often included personal information about the Member and asked individual students what others, including other students, parents and colleagues, thought of him.
The Member also invited and permitted certain students to attend at his home.

Abuse of Students

The Member permitted negativity to flourish among students; between himself and students and his negativity impacted the atmosphere in his classroom.
The Member belittled certain students. The Member’s actions caused certain students to break down. Certain students in the classroom felt vulnerable when the Member threatened not to work with them. The Member sought to control certain students’ lives both inside and outside of the school setting. The Member created a culture of elitism within the classroom. The Member withheld roles from students and changed casting at the very last minute, often on the performance day itself.
The Member yelled at students when he was dissatisfied with their performance. The Member yelled at students who fell asleep in class or during rehearsal due to the sheer exhaustion and demands the Member placed on students in his class and for theatrical productions.
On several occasions, the Member told students in private, that they were “too big” and/or “fat”. For example, he told a female student that she was “too big” to do theatre for the rest of her life. He also told the student that he could not provide her with costumes for her role in a show because of her weight and/or lack of budget.
On occasion and out of frustration, the Member grabbed a female student by her shoulders in response to a poor performance by the student. Additionally, on one occasion, the Member grabbed the same female student and pulled her down to the ground when the student did not listen to the Member.

Performances and Rehearsals

The Member’s drama students put on a number of productions during their Grades [XXX] academic years at the School.
The Member chose and/or approved scenes for the School productions which included inappropriate topics for a high school drama program such as: orgasmic behaviour, rape scenes, incest, suicides, family murder and violence. These topics were inappropriate for a high school production.
During the rehearsal of scenes for the productions, the Member:

(a) told female students their performance was not “sexual enough”, not “orgasmic” enough and he asked a female student to teach other female students in the class how to be or perform “sexy”, strictly in the context of rehearsals and/or performances;

(b) directed students to practice kissing each other in front of their classmates strictly in the context of rehearsals and/or performances;

(c) directed a female student to endure fake beatings and held the student’s head and/or neck down while another student stomped next to her head during rehearsals for a violent scene;

(d) did not supervise or teach students how to use theatrical wooden stakes in rehearsals which resulted in an injury to a student;

(e) closed students in small spaces to emulate scenes of a production, including in preparation for the performance of [XXX];

(f) encouraged sleep deprivation prior to certain performances in order to reach emotional exhaustion through physical exhaustion;

(g) told students inappropriate or false information about himself in order to elicit emotions or evoke sympathy just prior to performances, for example, he told students that he had cancer or was leaving the School;

(h) held an overnight rehearsal where the students did not sleep and he was the only teacher/adult supervising the students.

When the Member became upset and/or disappointed with students because of a miscue or a scene that needed work, he threatened students that he would speak to representatives of their university of choice and would tell the representatives that the students should not be accepted to their respective Fine Arts programs.
During rehearsals at School or off of School property, the Member kept students late at night, and on occasion, into the early morning hours. The Member did not provide or abide by scheduled rehearsal end times. The Member did not permit students to notify parents/guardians about changes to rehearsal end times.
The Member did not allow students to date other students in his class. In particular, he specifically did not allow students to date if they were part of the same production.
During a rehearsal, the Member pulled a female student into a room and yelled at her behind closed doors while she had a [XXX]. The next day, the female student told the Member that she had [XXX] during the rehearsal the night before and the Member he told her words to the effect of, “you can’t do that, it’s unacceptable”.
The Member enlisted students to help build sets and stages for the School’s productions and then failed to supervise students who used power tools and/or worked in elevated positions during the construction of sets and/or stages for plays.
The Member permitted students to carry heavy items to an outdoor shed, without giving students adequate precautions and equipment to do so safely. Furthermore, on another occasion, the Member shut students into an outdoor shed at the School.

Member’s Own Drama Productions

The Member permitted students to participate in his own theatre productions while those students were also carrying a heavy work load at the School with the drama program and other courses.
The Member texted a student during the summer just prior to the student going on a family vacation and told the student to tell his parents that he was sick and could not go on vacation. The Member wanted the student to remain behind to participate in the Member’s show with his theatre company.

Behaviour Impacting Colleagues

The Member would engage in inappropriate conversation with students about colleagues. In particular the Member:

(a) called a music teacher a “fucking bitch” and wanted her fired and/or moved from the School;

(b) referred to a female colleague as a “bad teacher” and the Member suggested to his class that he kept the colleague around “because she is naïve” and/or “will do whatever he says”;

(c) told students that the Department Head of the Dramatic Arts program hated him and the students and that she wanted to ruin the program;

(d) engaged in inappropriate conduct and/or communication with the Department Head of the Dramatic Arts program at the School.

[XXX] Trips – 2012 and 2014

During the summers of 2012 and 2014, the Member took students along with parent chaperones to the [XXX] in [XXX]. The [XXX] is a performing arts festival held in [XXX] in which individuals can participate. It is a celebration of the arts and culture and it is a non-competitive festival.
During the [XXX] 2012 trip, the Member:

(a) returned to Canada a few days early for medical reasons and left the students in the care of the parent chaperones. The Member did not advise the School administration that he left for Canada early and or that he had left the students in the care and supervision of the parent chaperones;

(b) told a student to obtain and/use fake identification to attend a show that was being performed in a nightclub and/or bar.

During the [XXX] 2014 trip, the Member:

(a) did not adequately supervise the students during the trip;

(b) was not available and/or reachable when students needed assistance;

(c) spoke to a group of Grade [XXX] female students about their personal lives in their hotel room alone until the early morning hours;

(d) permitted students to record and/or transcribe a performance of [XXX] to adapt for a School performance.

Student 1

Student 1 was a female student in the Member’s drama class during her [XXX] academic years at the School. She began Grade [XXX] during the [XXX] academic year and continued to be in the Member’s class through her Grade [XXX] academic year, [XXX] academic year.
The Member took a particular interest in Student 1 upon the student being accepted into the dramatic arts program at the School. Student 1 was a very talented actress and the Member took notice immediately. The relationship between the Member, Student 1 and her family began during the first parent-teacher in Grade [XXX], when the Member told Student 1’s mother that he would take Student 1 “under his wing” and make her a “star”. The Member promised Student 1 and her mother that she would go to a top performing arts post-secondary institution and be the top student in her year, but Student 1 had to agree to follow the Member’s plan in order for him to help Student 1 succeed. The Member’s plan included Student 1 staying [XXX] for a [XXX] year of high school.
At the outset the Member failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Student 1. The Member was in contact with the student by phone, he would send the student emails and text messages during the school year, over the summers and in the evenings during the student’s tenure at the School.
The Member allowed the student to spend time with his family outside of school. The Member allowed the student to have access to his computer and/or debit card passwords. The Member also permitted the student to leave the School during instructional time and drive his car. The student was perceived by other students in the Member’s class as one of his favourites.
The Member and the Member’s family had a close relationship with the student and the student’s family during Student 1’s tenure at the School. Student 1’s family would bring [XXX] for all the students during rehearsals and would [XXX] to where the students were to perform and or rehearse. The Member invited the student to his home to attend [XXX] classes with this wife, [XXX] his children and attend [XXX] dinner.
The Member:

(a) yelled at Student 1 in front of her peers when she was auditioning for a lead role in [XXX] and was not able to perform a song which she had not been asked to prepare. Student 1 left the auditorium in tears. The Member told the student that she had embarrassed him, but at the same time, he taught her a lesson;

(b) told the student after rehearsals and/or performances for [XXX] that Student 1 was horrible and had no talent;

(c) during the student’s Grade [XXX] monologues, which Student 1 was required to perform in private for the Member, criticized Student 1’s performance to such an extent that Student 1 left without completing her exam.

Student 1 advised the Member that it was her intention to apply to a post-secondary institution the Member had not recommended during her Grade [XXX] academic year. The Member perceived this to be contrary to earlier discussions he had had with Student 1 and her family where he had encouraged Student 1 to [XXX] high school for a [XXX] year. The Member:

(a) became very upset with Student 1 and told Student 1 that he no longer respected her and reminded her that she would not be anyone without him;

(b) told Student 1’s mother that the student was a “self-centered egotistical liar” and/or “despicable” for changing her mind about her future plans;

(c) told students from Student 1’s class that he would no longer work with them if they continued to remain friends with Student 1.

Discipline at the Board

The Member received two Letters of Expectation in June and December 2008. These letters of expectations addressed an absence from a Literacy Program Workshop. These letters reminded the Member that it was the expectation that all staff attendance at these workshops was mandatory. Additionally, it was expected that the Member adhered to the expectation of supervision duties, attendance at staff meetings, presence after school hours on school premises and reminded the Member that student interactions are to be kept professional at all times. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of the letters of expectations dated June 6, 2008 and December 2, 2008 respectively.
The Member received a Letter of Discipline in May 2012. This letter addressed concerns regarding early departure from parent-teacher interviews without following proper protocols. It also addressed field trip/excursion policies not being adhered too. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the letter of discipline dated May 21, 2012.
The Member received a Letter of Suspension in March 2016. The Member was given an eight day suspension without pay by the Board and required to take boundaries training. The Member was also transferred to another school for the 2016-2017 academic year. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the letter of suspension dated March 23, 2016.
The Member did not teach at another school for the 2016-2017 academic year. Over the Summer of 2016, additional allegations surfaced with respect to the Member’s inappropriate conduct with students. The Board assigned a third party investigator to investigate these allegations. Following a series of interviews with students, the Member’s employment was terminated for cause. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the letter of termination dated June 7, 2017.
A grievance was filed on behalf of the Member. A settlement was reached between the Member and the Board and the Member resigned his employment with the Board. The Minutes of Settlement were signed on December 7, 2019.

Current Status

The Member is currently not teaching or employed in any teaching position. He last taught in a classroom in June 2016.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs 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(6), 1(7 – pre-May 2008 amendments – not including sexual abuse), 1(7 – verbal abuse), 1(7.1 – physical abuse), 1(7.2 – psychological and emotional abuse), 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 a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including reference to 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

9Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing dated August 24, 2017 (Exhibit 1), paragraphs (a) and (g) of the Notice of Hearing dated August 6, 2019(Exhibit 2), and paragraphs (a) and (g) of the Notice of Hearing dated March 2, 2020(Exhibit 3), namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to 1(5), College Counsel submitted that proceeding under both 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative based on the facts outlined in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. As such, College Counsel requested that allegations relating to subsection 1(5) be withdrawn. With respect to 1(7.3), College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. The Panel granted these requests.

10Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on May 7, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(6), 1(7)⁶ [not including sexual abuse], 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

11The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 55 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 has engaged in a lengthy career of unprofessional conduct.

12The Panel finds that the Member released or disclosed information about a student to a person other than the student contrary to 1(6) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member inappropriately shared his negative opinions about current and former students in his classroom. Members should not share negative feedback about their current or former students with other students and by doing so, the Member was in violation of the section.

13For all instances of verbal, physical, and psychological or emotional abuse that occurred prior to May 4, 2008, the Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 as the subsection existed prior to the May 4, 2008 amendment. At the time, the section prohibited “abusing a student physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally”. For instances of verbal, physical and psychological or emotional abuse that occurred after May 4, 2008, the Panel finds that the Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(7.1) and 1(7.2) of the current version of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

14The Member verbally abused students repeatedly. On several occasions, he demeaned and put down his students by telling them that their project was “shit”, and referring to students as “worthless,” “talentless,” “stupid,” “idiot,” “terrible actors,” “crap,” and “piece of shit”. The Member has also not contested the fact that he has yelled at students on numerous occasions.

15The Member physically abused students. On one occasion, he grabbed a student by her shoulders and on another occasion, the Member pulled the same student to the ground. These are entirely inappropriate responses to poor classroom performance by a student.

16The Member repeatedly emotionally or psychologically abused his students. Among other unacceptable behaviours, the Member told students that they were “fat” and “too big” to work in theatre, he threatened not to work with some students and he withheld roles from certain students. Furthermore, the Member yelled at a student while she was having a [XXX]. The Member’s emotional abuse of his students caused some students to break down and others to feel vulnerable.

17The Panel finds that the Member failed to adequately supervise his students on a number of occasions contrary to subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member left the students to be chaperoned only by parent volunteers while on an international trip without first obtaining permission to do so from (or even notifying) the school administration. Additionally, the Member allowed his grade [XXX] students to teach his grade [XXX] students without his supervision, he allowed students to leave school during the day, and he inappropriately allowed students to use his personal vehicle.

18The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act, regulations, or by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Section 32 of the College By-Laws requires members to comply with the College’s Standards of Practice. The standard of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” requires that members treat students equitably and with respect and that members be sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning. By pitting students against each other, and creating an overall culture of elitism in his classroom, the Member failed to comply with this standard.

19The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Section 264(1) sets out the duties of a teacher and specifies that, among other things, teachers are required to encourage pupils in the pursuit of learning. The Member’s intimidating, belittling, and demeaning behaviour towards his students was contrary to the requirements set out at section 264(1) of the Education Act.

20The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to act in a professional manner and to exercise good judgment and compassion for students. By engaging in inappropriate and profane conversations about his colleagues in front of his students, and by repeatedly demeaning students, the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

21Similarly, the Member’s conduct toward his students was unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s behaviour undermined the reputation of the teaching profession, and violated the trust that the public places in members.

F. PENALTY Decision

22The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 5), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on May 7, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

23The 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. Reinders, 2017 ONOCT 62, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Glazer, 2018 ONOCT 37. These cases demonstrate that revocation is not reserved for cases of sexual abuse.

24The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The Panel took note of several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member’s misconduct was prolonged and repetitive, spanning over 10 years. Second, the Member had been put on notice by the Board regarding concerns about his inappropriate behaviour through letters of expectation (June 5, 2008 and December 2, 2008) and a letter of discipline (May 21, 2012). Despite these warnings from the Board, the Member continued to repeatedly engage in misconduct until his suspension in 2016. Finally, the Member’s behaviour has led to emotional harm for several of his students. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest the misconduct allegations, saving the time and expense of an extremely lengthy contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

25The Panel finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is appropriate in this case. The Member’s conduct towards his students was abhorrent and reprehensible. The Member’s prolonged and recurring verbal and emotional abuse of his students warrants an order of the Panel’s most severe penalty available: revocation. Not only has the Member’s conduct had a grave impact on his students, but it has also violated the public’s trust in the teaching profession. Accordingly, the Member is no longer entitled to be a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

26The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: May 11, 2020

Jonathan Rose Chair, Discipline Panel

John Hamilton, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
Verbal, emotional, psychological and physical abuse only, in accordance with the version of the regulation in force between December 4, 1997 and May 4, 2008.

Ontario College of Teachers v. Nabben, 2020 ONOCT 166

Case Summary

A. PUBLICATION ban

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

D. DECISION

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

F. PENALTY Decision

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

Footnotes