DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Deault 2020 ONOCT 187
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
Nathalie Marie-Rose Deault, a member of the
Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
NATHALIE MARIE-ROSE DEAULT (REGISTRATION #470486)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Marlène Marwah Sara Nouini, OCT
HEARD: September 1, 2020
Christine Lonsdale and Emilie Bruneau, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Ashley Friel, for Nathalie Marie-Rose Deault
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 September 1, 2020. With the consent of the parties and in accordance with section 3 of the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, S.O. 2020, c. 5, Sched. 3, the hearing was conducted electronically.
2Nathalie Marie-Rose Deault (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had paralegal 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 June 12, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Nathalie Marie-Rose Deault is guilty of professional misconduct 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 Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(c) 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);
(d) she 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);
(e) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. Agreed Statement of Facts
5Counsel for the College presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Nathalie Marie-Rose Deault is a member of the College. Attached as Schedule “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 Conseil scolaire catholique du Nouvel-Ontario (the “Board”), as an occasional teacher.
On November 30, 2016, the Member accepted an assignment to work that day at École St-Pierre in Sudbury, Ontario. The Member did not report for the assignment.
The Member did not inform either the Principal of École St-Pierre or the Board’s Human Resources Department that she would not be reporting for the assignment she had accepted.
The Board scheduled a meeting with the Member for December 22, 2016. The Member did not attend the meeting.
On the morning of December 22, 2016, the Member informed the Board that a medical problem prevented her from attending the meeting. The Board required the Member to submit medical documentation attesting to her inability to attend the December 22 meeting. The Member failed to submit any medical documentation.
On March 9, 2017, the Board terminated the Member’s employment. Attached as Schedule “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member, dated March 9, 2017.
Previous Disciplinary Measures
In February 2013, when the Member was carrying out a long-term assignment at École St-Denis, she failed to report for the assignment. Attached as Sched7le “C” is a copy of the Board’s written reprimand to the Member, dated April 15, 2013.
In September 2014, when the Member was assigned to a long-term position at École St-Denis, she took sick leave on September 17, 2014 and did not participate in the parent-teacher meeting. Attached as Schedule “D” is a copy of the Board’s written reprimand to the Member, dated September 29, 2014.
On September 24, 2014, the Member made unprofessional remarks in the teachers’ lounge complaining about the early childhood educator. Attached as Schedule “E” is a copy of the Board’s written reprimand to the Member, dated October 14, 2014.
On December 18, 2015, the Member received a disciplinary letter from the Board. Attached as Schedule “F” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member, dated December 18.
On December 13, 2016, the Member received a caution from the College’s Investigation Committee with regard to the incidents in November 2015.
Additional Information
- At the time of the incidents described above, the Member had an undiagnosed medical condition that affected her ability to manage the incidents described above, particularly the incidents between November 30 and December 22, 2016. The Member acknowledges her responsibility for the acts of professional misconduct and she was not incapacitated.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, 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 Pour parler profession/ Professionally Speaking, the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and the College 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 opportunity to obtain advice from legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts described above and the plea of guilt, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that permission was being sought from the Panel to withdraw allegation 1(5) because it duplicated allegation 1(14). The Panel granted this request.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on September 1, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.
9The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). The Member failed to observe the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, which are set out in section 32.02 of the bylaws. They include a requirement for members to embody reliability in their professional commitments and responsibilities (“Integrity”). In February 2013, after accepting a long-term assignment, the Member failed to report on the first day of work. In November 2016, the Member accepted an assignment to work that day but failed to report to the school for the assignment and did not inform either the Principal or the Board’s Human Resources Department. She also failed to attend the subsequent meeting scheduled with the Board. She then announced that a medical problem had prevented her from attending but failed to provide any supporting documentation. Her conduct demonstrates unreliability and irresponsibility towards her employer.
10The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). One requirement of this provision in the Act is that teachers act with “the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty […]” (clause 264(1)c)) and that they “notify such person as is designated by the board if the teacher is to be absent from school and the reason therefor” (clause 264(1)i)). The Member failed to meet these obligations on several occasions. In September 2014 she took sick leave and failed to meet with the parents on the day of their compulsory meeting. In November 2015 she refused to meet with the Principal to discuss her professional conduct. In December 2016 she failed to attend a meeting with her Board. This conduct demonstrates the Member’s disloyalty to her work as a teacher.
11The Member 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). We expect teachers to report to work, and if they have to be absent they are required to follow their employer’s instructions. The Member fell short of this expectation on a number of occasions. In addition, she made unprofessional remarks in the teachers’ lounge complaining about a colleague.
12Similarly, the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Her unprofessionalism and lack of integrity undermine the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY DEcision
13The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 1, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing to receive an oral reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, which fact is to be recorded on the Register;
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of three months, as of the 15th calendar day following the oral decision of the Discipline Committee in this matter, which fact is to be recorded on the Register. If the oral decision and order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension is to begin on September 1.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following conditions or restrictions on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, which will be recorded on the Register:
(a) Prior to accepting any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall, at her own expense, register in and successfully complete a course pre-approved by the Registrar on ethics and professional responsibilities, that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide a course provider approved by the Registrar with a copy of the Statement of Admitted Facts and Guilty Plea, the Joint Submission on Penalty filed as evidence at the hearing in this matter and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) after reviewing the documents referred to in (i) above, the course provider shall provide the Registrar, for approval, with a curriculum for the proposed course which specifically addresses the concerns of the Discipline Committee with respect to the Member’s professional misconduct. The curriculum proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of such course, and its objectives;
(b) Within 30 days of completion of the above-described course, the Member shall provide the Registrar with written evidence from the provider stating that:
(i) the Member has successfully completed the course, and describing the Member’s progress with respect to the course objectives.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
14The 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. Roloson, 2018 ONOCT 60, Ontario College of Teachers v. Gocking, 2019 ONOCT 52 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Johnson, 2019 ONOCT 23.
15The Panel considered the circumstances in this matter in comparison to the cases provided. Aggravating factors include the Member’s repeated absences without cause over several years, despite warnings from her employer and a caution from the College’s Investigation Committee. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her professional misconduct, thereby avoiding a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
16The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand by her peers. Her tendency to miss work and compulsory meetings, provide no notification of her absences and disregard the procedure for following up on and providing reasons for her absences is concerning and indicative of poor professional judgment. The reprimand will allow the Panel to raise its concerns directly with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register is important, because it will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
17Given the duration and seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. Although the cases presented differ factually in some ways from this matter, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is similar and confirms that a suspension of the certificate is warranted. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making it clear that failing to report to work on numerous occasions, without giving the employer any notification or reason, is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will be suspended effective September 16, 2020, 15 days after the oral decision and order made by the Panel.
18The Panel considers that the course on ethics and professional responsibilities will contribute to the Member’s rehabilitation process and deepen her insight into the inappropriateness of her conduct.It will remind her of her obligations as a teacher and is also intended to help her to make better decisions.
19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
September 3, 2020
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel