DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Tadontsop 2020 ONOCT 190
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
Carine Larissa Tchoutizo Tadontsop, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CARINE LARISSA TCHOUTIZO TADONTSOP (REGISTRATION #654449)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Richard Filion Marlène Marwah
HEARD: August 21, 2020
Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jean-Michel Corbeil, for Carine Larissa Tchoutizo Tadontsop 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 August 21, 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.
2Carine Larissa Tchoutizo Tadontsop (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. 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 July 24, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Carine Larissa Tchoutizo Tadontsop is guilty of professional misconduct or is incompetent as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);1
(f) 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);
(g) 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);
(h) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19);
(i) she displayed in her professional responsibilities a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or disregard for the welfare of her students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the member is unfit to continue to carry out her professional responsibilities or that a certificate held by the member under this Act should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.2
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Carine Larissa Tchoutizo Tadontsop is a member of the College. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est de l’Ontario as an occasional teacher.
During the 2016-2017 school year:
(a) Student 1 was a student at École [XXX] in Ottawa [XXX]
(b) Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] student at [XXX];
(c) Student 3 was a Grade [XXX]student at [XXX];
(d) Student 4 was a Grade [XXX] student at [XXX];
(e) Student 5 was a student at [XXX];
(f) Student 6 was a student at [XXX].
February 12, 2016
- On February 12, 2016, the Member was assigned to work at École [XXX] , in [XXX]. The Principal made the following observations:
(a) The Member used her cell phone for personal purposes in the classroom, when she received a call concerning her daughter;
(b) The Member used the classroom computer for personal purposes, including watching videos on YouTube and printing out coupons;
(c) The Member placed a student in the hallway unsupervised.
- The Principal gave the Member a verbal warning and instructions concerning the use of the classroom computer for personal purposes, and placing a student in the hallway unsupervised. The Principal reminded the Member:
not to place a student in the hallway unsupervised or without informing the Principal;
not to use the classroom computer for personal purposes;
to inform the teacher if any students misbehaved.
April 5, 2016
On April 5, 2016, the Member was assigned to work at École [XXX], in Ottawa. Three co-workers had to intervene in the Member’s classroom because it was very noisy. One co-worker noted that the Member was shouting very loudly at a student. Another discovered the Member sitting at the computer with her back to the students. Two other co-workers heard the noise the students were making and heard the Member shouting. The Member was unable to control the class.
At the end of the day, after leaving the school, the Member returned because she had left her credit card by the computer in the classroom. After checking the browsing history, the administrators found that the Member had used the classroom computer for personal purposes during class time.
2016-2017 School Year
In December 2016, the Member started a long-term occasional teaching position at École [XXX] in Ottawa.
On December 21, 2016, when she was supervising the students outside, the Member used her cell phone and failed to intervene when students were throwing snowballs.
On December 22, 2016, the Member called the office to report that a student in her classroom was missing. The Principal went to the Member’s classroom and, from the hallway, could hear the Member shouting at students. The Principal went into the classroom, and the Member said that Student 1 had left the classroom. Shortly afterwards, Student 1 returned and said that he had been in the washroom.
The Principal remained in the classroom because the Member had lost control of her classroom. While some groups of students were making presentations, the other students kept talking. The Member “shushed” the students, who kept on talking.
On January 9, 2017, the Principal met with the Member to discuss the incidents on December 21 and 22, 2016, and other concerns. On January 23, 2017, the Member received a disciplinary letter with regard to the incidents on December 21 and 22. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Principal’s letter to the Member, dated January 23, 2017.
On January 13, 2017, while the Member was in charge of a Grade [XXX] class, she left Students 2 and 3 alone in a cloakroom while she went outside with the other students in the class for recess. Student 3 was crying.
That same day (January 13, 2017), the Principal noticed Student 4 tearfully leaving his [XXX] class with the Member. When the Principal questioned Student 4, he said that he was crying because he had to use the washroom, but the Member would not let him do so until he finished his work. Student 4 said that the Member was mean and shouted.
On January 13, 2017, the Principal met with the Member to discuss the incidents with Students 2, 3 and 4. The Member admitted that she had left Students 2 and 3 alone in a cloakroom upstairs while she went downstairs to take the other students outside for recess.
On January 24, 2017, the Member received a disciplinary letter with regard to the incidents on January 13, and a two-day suspension without pay. Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Principal’s letter to the Member, dated January 24, 2017.
In January 2017, the Principal met several times with the Member about submission of the students’ report cards. The Member was supposed to finish the report cards by January 31. She missed the report card submission deadlines despite the supportive measures set up by the Principal. She also failed to evaluate the students in compliance with Ministry of Education requirements.
On February 3, 2017, Student 6 told the Principal that while he was looking for a pencil, the Member gripped him by the wrists and shouted, “Sit down.” Student 6 was surprised because the Member had given him permission to look for a pencil. The Member’s actions adversely affected Student 6.
On February 3 and 6, 2017, the Principal interviewed several students in the Member’s class. Other students had witnessed the incident with Student 6. The students claimed that the Member shouted at them. She had also made Student 5 cry by refusing to let him go to the washroom.
On February 9, 2017, the Board met with the Member to discuss the report cards and the incidents on February 3.
On February 22, 2017, the Board met again with the Member to raise its concerns about the Member’s giving two students popcorn without their parents’ permission, which was against school policy.
The Board also reviewed the Member’s use of the classroom computer. After reviewing the browsing history and their discussions with students, the Board found that between December 2016 and February 2017, the Member had viewed YouTube video clips in the classroom that contained inappropriate images and lyrics.
On March 8, 2017, the Board met again with the Member to discuss her use of the classroom computer to view YouTube video clips. The Member admitted that she sometimes watched music videos.
On March 28, 2017, the Member was advised that because of the incidents during the 2016-2017 school year, she was being struck permanently from the Board’s occasional teaching list. Attached as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Principal’s letter to the Member, dated March 28, 2017.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute professional misconduct and admits to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that, by pleading no contest 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 advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Act, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts described above and the plea of no contest, 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 (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. Counsel for the College further requested that the allegation of incompetence in paragraph (i) of the Notice of Hearing be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that permission was being sought from the Panel to withdraw allegation 1(14) because it duplicated allegation 1(5), and to withdraw the allegation of incompetence because the Uncontested Facts do not constitute incompetence. The Panel granted these requests.
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 August 21, 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(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 24 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. She acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.
9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5). The standards include a requirement for members to express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice (“Care”). The Member failed in this duty when she shouted on several occasions at the students in her charge. She also left Grade [XXX] students unsupervised several times (one student in the hallway, and Students 2 and 3 in the cloakroom), and Student 1 had left the classroom without the Member’s knowledge, which shows poor professional judgment.
10The Member abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). She shouted at students as a classroom management strategy. The Member was warned by the Principal several times, but continued to shout at the students instead of making use of appropriate and professional classroom management strategies. As a result, she was disciplined by her School Board. The Panel finds and accepts that shouting at students as a classroom management strategy constitutes verbal abuse.
11The Member abused a student physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1). While Student 6 was looking for a pencil, the Member gripped him by the wrists. The Member’s conduct towards Student 6 constitutes physical abuse, which adversely affected the student. Teachers are not to touch students in this manner and are to refrain from using physical force to deal with behaviour.
12The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). For example, the Member made Student 4 cry by refusing to let him use the washroom until he finished his work. Student 4 said that the Member was mean and shouted at the students. Student 5 was crying as well when she refused to let him go to the washroom. Preventing students from going to the washroom as a disciplinary measure is not conducive to young children’s psychological well-being. It was the Member’s duty to use professional and appropriate classroom management strategies that took the students’ circumstances and individual needs into account.
13The Member 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). One requirement of this provision in the Act is that teachers act as a role model for students at all times, which the Member failed to do in a number of situations. For example, she used a classroom computer for personal purposes, viewed video clips on YouTube that contained inappropriate images and lyrics, and printed out coupons. Using a classroom computer for personal purposes is inappropriate and sets a poor example for students. This provision in the Act also requires teachers to maintain proper order and discipline in their classroom and on the school ground. While she was supervising the students in the playground, the Member failed to intervene when students were throwing snowballs because she was on her cell phone. This conduct demonstrates the Member’s neglect of her duty to maintain proper order and discipline on the school ground while supervising students.
14The 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). Members of the teaching profession are required to use classroom computers for work purposes only and not to use their cell phones while teaching or supervising students. The Member’s actions are indicative of poor professional judgment and contrary to the duties of the teaching profession.
15Similarly, the conduct as described above demonstrates a failure to exercise integrity in a teacher’s professional responsibilities, which constitutes conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). The Member’s conduct damaged the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY DECISION
16The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on August 21, 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 a 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 two 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) The Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense, within 120 days following the date of this order, a course pre-approved by the Registrar in anger management and classroom management, that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide a course provider, approved by the Registrar, with a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the Joint Submission on Penalty filed as evidence at the hearing in this matter and the decision and reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents referred to in paragraph (i) above, the course provider shall provide the Registrar, for approval, with a curriculum for the proposed course that specifically addresses the concerns of the Discipline Committee with regard to the Member’s professional misconduct. The curriculum proposed by the course provider shall also specify the length of said course and its objectives;
(b) Within 30 days following completion of the above-mentioned course described in (a) above, the Member shall provide the Registrar with evidence in writing from the provider stating that:
(i) the Member has successfully completed the course, and describing the Member’s progress with respect to the objectives of the course.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
17The 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. James, 2019 ONOCT 33, Ontario College of Teachers v. Georgiopoulos, 2019 ONOCT 37 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gulamhusein, 2019 ONOCT 101.
18The Panel considered the circumstances in this matter in comparison to the cases provided and found aggravating factors in the Member’s case, such as the fact that the Member’s behaviour towards children under her supervision occurred in more than one school over more than one year, notwithstanding her employer’s warnings and disciplinary measures. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her professional misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Moreover, the Member has no previous history of appearing before the Discipline Panel. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
19The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand by her peers for engaging in inappropriate conduct numerous times in spite of her employer’s warnings. The Panel expects members to express their commitment to students’ psychological well-being through their professional practice, and to avoid shouting at students or using physical force with them. Members must also ensure a safe school environment that is conducive to students’ learning. The Member disregarded this directive. Indeed, she used a classroom computer and her cell phone for personal purposes, and failed to supervise her students adequately. 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 will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
20Given the duration and seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a two-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct in some ways from this matter, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is similar and confirms that a temporary suspension of the Member’s certificate is warranted. Members hold a unique position of trust which requires them to ensure student safety and supervision, a duty in which the Member failed on several occasions. When a teacher ignores this responsibility, parental and public trust in the teaching profession is undermined. 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 such conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will be suspended effective September 5, 2020, 15 days after the oral decision and order rendered by the Panel.
21The Panel considers that the course on anger management and classroom management will contribute to the Member’s rehabilitation process. It will remind her of her obligations as a teacher and help her to make better decisions in her interactions with students.
22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
August 28, 2020
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Richard Filion Member, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel