DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Adeossi 2020 ONOCT 197 Date: 2020-11-17
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
Tochéhou Sosthène Polycarpe Adeossi, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
TOCHÉHOU SOSTHÈNE POLYCARPE ADEOSSI (REGISTRATION #653741)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair
Élaine Legault
Marlène Marwah
HEARD: November 10, 2020
Christine Lonsdale and Emilie Bruneau, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Lise Leduc, for Tochéhou Sosthène Polycarpe Adeossi
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.
1The matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on November 10, 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, Schedule 3, this matter proceeded by way of an electronic hearing.
2Mr. Tochéhou Sosthène Polycarpe Adeossi (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.
A. Publication BAN
3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 12, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGEDthat Tochéhou Sosthène Polycarpe Adeossi 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 abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(d) 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);
(e) 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);
(f) 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:
Tochéhou Sosthène Polycarpe Adeossi (the "Member") is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto in 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 Franco-Nord (the “Board”) as a long-term supply teacher. The Board hired the Member in May 2014.
On February 3, 2017, the Member started a position as a long-term supply teacher at École [XXX] (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario. He was a Grade [XXX] classroom teacher.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class.
On or about May 3, 2017, Student 1 was playing in a corner of the classroom behind a book cart. Another student was playing with Student 1, and Student 1 was sitting on the floor. The Member approached Student 1 and said to Student 1 to get up from the floor. The Member then kicked Student 1 on his right thigh.
On other occasions during the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member pulled certain students by the arm or by the hand to take them to their desks or bring them into the hall.
Following the incident on May 3, 2017, a report was made with the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”). The CAS verified concerns about the use of physical force on May 3, 2017. A copy of the letter from the CAS to the Board dated June 12, 2017 is attached hereto in Schedule B.
The Board also conducted an investigation into the incident of May 3, 2017. On June 16, 2017, the Board notified the Member that, following its investigation, the Board had concluded that the Member had kicked a student and that he had pulled certain students by the arm to move them. The member was notified that a recommendation of dismissal would be presented to the Board at the next meeting. A copy of the letter from the Board to the Member, dated June 16, 2017, is hereby attached in Schedule C. The recommendation of dismissal was presented to the Board on June 21, 2017 and was approved.
Previous disciplinary action
- The Investigation Committee reviewed a complaint against the Member in 2017. On September 14, 2017, the Committee decided to issue an admonishment to the Member. When he was teaching at the École [XXX] in a long-term supply teaching position, the Member had pushed a Grade [XXX] student and had thrown his backpack out of the classroom.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member does not contest the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the "Uncontested Facts").
The Member hereby acknowledges that the aforementioned Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct and he acknowledges the allegations of professional misconduct against him, particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7.1), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).
The Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct 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 prove the merits of the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) 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, Pour parler profession/Professionally Speaking;
(e) he understands that the agreement between the College and the Member with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(f) he understands and 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 Act 1996 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 aforementioned Uncontested Facts and plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee finds that the Member’s actions constitute professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6College Counsel requested the withdrawal of the allegation of professional misconduct in section (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member violated Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5). College Counsel stated that permission was being sought from the Panel to withdraw allegation 1(5), since it duplicates allegation 1(14). 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 November 10, 2020, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.1), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. He acknowledged, and the Panel accepts, that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.
9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member abused students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1). The Member kicked the right thigh of Student 1, who was sitting on the floor, to prompt him to stand up and pulled certain students by the arm or the hand. The Member’s conduct towards these young students constitutes physical abuse. Teachers must not use physical force to discipline students under any circumstances.
10The admissions demonstrated 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 comply with the ethical standards set out in section 32.02 of the by-laws. Among other things, members are expected to express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice ("care"). Members are also expected to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development in their professional practice ("respect"). The Member failed to comply with ethical standards when he pulled certain young students by the arm or the hand to take them to their desks or have them leave the classroom.
11The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Among other things, this provision of the Act requires teachers to set an example for students at all times, which the Member did not do when he had inappropriate contact with students.
12The 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 profession are required to use effective and professional classroom management methods. By using physical force against students, the Member did the opposite.
13All conduct, as described above, is unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19) and shows a lack of integrity in the performance of a teacher’s professional duties and responsibilities. The Member neglected the responsibility of ensuring students’ physical safety, which undermined the trust of parents and the public.
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 November 10, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed by the Panel to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately after the hearing, and the Committee is directed by the Panel to impose a reprimand that shall be delivered in person at the Ontario College of Teachers offices at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the reprimand shall be recorded on the public register.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for four months, as of the 15^th^ calendar day following the Discipline Committee’s oral decision concerning this matter, and the suspension should be entered in the public register.
The Registrar is directed to make the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration subject to the following conditions or restrictions that will be recorded on the public register:
(a) Within one hundred and twenty (120) days following the date of this order, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management and effective classroom management methods, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) Upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of said course and the course goals;
(b) Within 30 days following his completion of the course outlined above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY dEcision
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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Hyde, 2016 ONOCT 25 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Dayfoot, 2018 ONOCT 73.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the fact that the Member’s conduct was repeated in more than one school and with several students, which demonstrates worrisome behaviour. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his professional misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand by his peers for his physical, inappropriate and repeated actions towards students. It is totally inappropriate to kick a student or to pull a student by the arm or the hand. The profession and the public do not tolerate teachers’ using physical force to manage students’ behaviour. In the practice of their profession, members are expected to provide a safe school environment that supports student learning. In addition, teachers are expected to express their commitment to students’ well-being. To this end, members of the profession are required to use effective and professional classroom management strategies. 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.
18Given the severity and the repetition of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a four-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The use of physical force by a teacher as a disciplinary method is unacceptable. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented is of a similar nature and confirms that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the joint submission of the parties, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will be suspended from November 25, 2020, namely 15 days after the Panel’s oral decision and order.
19The Panel concludes that the course on anger management and effective classroom management techniques will help the Member rehabilitate. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in his interactions with students.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
November 17, 2020
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault
Member, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah
Member, Discipline Panel