Ontario College of Teachers v. Weller, 2020 ONOCT 168

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers

Ontario College of Teachers v Weller 2020 ONOCT 168

Date: 2020-07-08

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 Peter John Weller, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

Between:

Ontario College of Teachers

– and –

Peter John Weller (Registration #426540)

Panel: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair Rebecca Forte, OCT Marlène Marwah

Heard: July 7, 2020

Counsel: Jean-François Schaan, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jack Brown, for Peter John Weller 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 July 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.

2Peter John Weller (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but appeared via videoconference to receive his reprimand. He had legal representation throughout the hearing. 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 November 18, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Peter John Weller 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 failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

(c) 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);

(d) 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);¹

(e) 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:

1. At all material times, Peter John Weller was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached as Appendix "A" is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Renfrew County District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. The Member has been employed with the Board since August 30, 1999. The Member has no previous disciplinary history with the Board or the College.

4. At all material times, Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3 were students at the School in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class.

5. On one occasion in the Spring of 2018, the Member sent Student 1, a female student, to his residence during instructional time to retrieve personal paperwork. The Member’s residence was approximately 900 meters away from the School. The Member’s car had recently been broken into, his wallet had been stolen and his bank cards had been used. The police had asked the Member to provide a bank statement to assist them in their investigation, but the Member had forgotten it at his residence on the day in question. The police contacted the Member during his class, asking him again for the bank statement, and the Member allowed Student 1 to go to his residence to retrieve the bank statement. Student 1 was gone for an estimated 5 to 8 minutes.

6. Between February 1, 2018 and June 19, 2018, the Member, during a discussion in class, referred to Student 2, a male student, as the “other guy” on the basis of Student 2’s religious and/or ethnic background, and invited Student 2 to contribute to the conversation on the basis of his religious and/or ethnic background.

7. Between February 1, 2018 and June 19, 2018, the Member, during a discussion in class, involved Student 3, a male student, asking him to contribute to the conversation on the basis of his sexual orientation. If the Member were to testify, he would state that he had received Student 3’s permission before class to make reference to his sexual orientation, within the context of a class discussion on diversity.

8. Following its investigation, the Board determined that the Member used poor judgement when he asked Student 1 to retrieve personal paperwork from his residence during instructional time and used inappropriate and insensitive terminology when referring to a student of [XXX] background and a student who identifies as [XXX].

9. On or about June 27, 2018, the Board issued a letter of discipline to the Member. The Board suspended the Member for one day without pay and required him to take a course to address the concerns that led to the suspension. Attached as Appendix "B" is a copy of the Board’s June 27, 2018 letter of discipline.

10. On or about September 19 and 24, 2018, the Member completed over six hours of active engagement during a Sensitivity Training course of study that had been specifically tailored for him. Attached as Appendix "C" is a copy of a letter from the course provider, dated September 24, 2018, setting out the Member’s completion of the Sensitivity Training coursework.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

11. By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

12. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

(a) he failed to maintain the standard of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) 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);

(c) 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);

(d) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

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

13. By signing this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that 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 Discipline 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 the College with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

14. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purposes 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.

15. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6At the outset of the hearing, College Counsel requested that the Panel find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable) with respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. This request was being sought as the Uncontested Facts support a finding of unprofessional only under that subsection. The Panel granted this request.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on July 7, 2020, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 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 failed to adequately supervise a student and was insensitive when dealing with two other students.

9The Panel finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Among other things, the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession provide that “Members are dedicated in their care and commitment to students. They treat students equitably and with respect and are sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning.” The Member referred to Student 2, who was of a [XXX] background, as the “other guy” on the basis of his religious and/or ethnic background and invited him to contribute to a classroom discussion on the basis of his background. The Member also asked Student 3 to contribute to a conversation in class on the basis of his sexual orientation. Although the Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member may have received Student 3’s permission before class to make reference to his sexual orientation, the Panel finds that the Member should have known better. The actions of the Member made students feel uncomfortable (see Appendix B). By inappropriately singling out Student 2 and Student 3, the Member demonstrated a lack of care, respect and commitment towards his students and their learning.

10The Member contravened subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to adequately supervise Student 1, who was under his professional supervision. The Member sent Student 1 to his (the Member’s) residence during instructional time to retrieve his personal paperwork. Due to the Member’s request, Student 1 was left unsupervised for approximately 5-8 minutes. By failing to adequately supervise Student 1 and sending her away from the school, the Member put the safety of Student 1 at risk. Members of the profession are expected to provide students with a safe learning environment and to supervise students during instructional time. The Member failed to meet this expectation.

11The Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1)(c) and (e) of the Education Act, which set out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(c) provides that teachers are “to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion […] and all other virtues.” By using an insensitive term when referring to Student 2 on the basis of his religious and/or ethnic background and when singling out Student 3 due to his sexual orientation, the Member’s conduct was at odds with his duties as a teacher. The Panel finds that the Member acted as a poor role model for students through his behaviour in these instances. Section 264(1)(e) provides that teachers are expected to “maintain […] proper order and discipline in [their] classroom and while on duty in the school and on the school ground.” It is unacceptable for a teacher to send a student to his residence during instructional time to retrieve personal paperwork. By doing so, the Member failed to maintain proper order and discipline in the classroom.

12The Member contravened subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by engaging in unprofessional conduct. The Member demonstrated a lack of professional judgment when he used inappropriate and insensitive terminology in class when referring to Student 2, when he singled out Student 3 on the basis of his sexual orientation, and when he asked Student 1 to retrieve his (the Member’s) personal paperwork from his residence during instructional time.

13Finally, the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the profession are expected to be sensitive towards students and to properly supervise their students. When members do the opposite, as the Member did in this case, the public loses faith in the teaching profession, whose members are responsible for the well-being of students.

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 July 7, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”); and

2. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (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) the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and the Standards of the teaching profession. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has fulfilled this requirement as of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee;

(b) the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course provider stating that the Member has successfully completed the course. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has fulfilled this requirement as of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee.

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. Gocking, 2019 ONOCT 52, Ontario College of Teachers v. Inch, 2019 ONOCT 103, Ontario College of Teachers v. Vaillancourt, 2014 ONOCT 107, Ontario College of Teachers v. Goodfellow, 2019 ONOCT 59 and Ontario College of Teachers v. McColeman, 2019 ONOCT 109.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is that the Member’s lapses in professional judgment involved several students. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and he has no previous disciplinary history with the Board or the College. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members are expected to create a safe and supportive learning environment for their students and to serve as positive role models for students. The Member failed to do so by sending Student 1 to his residence to retrieve his personal paperwork and by being insensitive towards Students 2 and 3. 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.

18The Panel takes note that the Member has completed the required coursework (Appendix C) and if he had not done so, it would have been appropriate for the Panel to order that the Member complete this course prior to returning to teaching. The Panel accepts that the course has assisted in the rehabilitation of the Member and that no further coursework is required. The course has reminded the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: July 8, 2020

John Hamilton, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Rebecca Forte, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation narrowed to unprofessional acts only, at the request of College Counsel.