DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Bhalla 2020 ONOCT 206
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
Maridul Bhalla, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MARIDUL BHALLA (REGISTRATION #510260)
PANEL: Nicola Powadiuk, OCT, Chair Marlène Marwah Nancy Saunders, OCT
HEARD: November 23, 2020
Danielle Miller and Steven Chadwick, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Philip Abbink, for Maridul Bhalla
Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(1) and 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 Person 1, or any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in this hearing.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on November 23, 2020, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Maridul Bhalla (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.
4Additionally, a publication ban was ordered pursuant to subsection 32.1(1) of the Act at the request of the parties on behalf of Person 1. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity Person 1.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 5, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Maridul Bhalla is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(b) 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);
(c) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Maridul Bhalla 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 with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] School in Etobicoke, Ontario. At all material times, Person 1 was an adult.
During the period of January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015, the Member physically abused Person 1. The Member’s physical abuse included the following:
(a) On May 29, 2015, the Member dragged person 1 by her left arm, slapped Person 1, and pushed Person 1 to the floor.
(b) On June 20, 2015, the Member slapped Person 1 with an open hand on her head, pulled Person 1 by her hair, and punched Person 1 on her upper right thigh.
- During the period of January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015, the Member verbally abused Person 1. In or around June 2015, the Member said: “Nobody should look at your face”. On June 20, 2015, the Member said the following to Person 1:
(a) “You deserve to be spat at”;
(b) “You deserve to be hit even more”;
(c) “Give me your cell phone, you can’t talk to anybody:”
(d) “If you touch me, I’m going to hit you”;
(e) “I’m going to control you”;
(f) “I’m going to break your teeth this time”;
(g) “You’re just a bitch”.
On or about June 20, 2015, the Member was charged with assault and uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm contrary to sections 266 and 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a certified copy of the information pertaining to the Member.
On March 24, 2016, in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Member entered into a 12-month common law peace bond requiring that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour, have no contact with Person 1 except under specific circumstances, and not possess any weapons, following which the criminal charges were withdrawn. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Court’s Order confirming same, dated March 24, 2016.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 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(14), 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 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 counsel for the College and himself 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 should find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
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 23, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 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 verbally and physically abused Person 1 on at least two occasions in 2015.
9The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member has acknowledged that his conduct was a breach of the Ethical Standards for the teaching profession, codified in section 32 of the College Bylaws. The Panel notes that the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession generally represent a vision for professional practice only. However, the Panel acknowledges that members are not only expected to uphold the Ethical Standards through their relationships within their teaching practice, but also through their relationships with the public. The Panel accepts the College’s unchallenged submission that the Member’s misconduct was contrary to the standard of “Respect”. In accordance with this standard, members are expected to honour human dignity, emotional wellness, and cognitive development. The Member failed to show respect to Person 1’s emotional wellness by physically and verbally abusing her.
10The Member’s misconduct is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. As leaders and role models in their school communities, it is unacceptable for members of the profession to engage in physical and verbal abuse of others. The Member’s misconduct involved serious abusive behaviour towards Person 1 and is therefore properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.
11Similarly, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is eroded when a member models inappropriate behaviour in the community. In this case, the Member’s verbal and physical abuse of Person 1 undermined the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY Decision
12The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on November 23, 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 of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register. If the Oral Decision and Order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1; and
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations is to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) Within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the 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, Reasons for Decision and Order 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 the course to be undertaken by the Member and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) 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
13The 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. Luymes, 2016 ONOCT 34, Ontario College of Teachers v. Jordan, 2016 ONOCT 64, Ontario College of Teachers v. McClenaghan, 2017 ONOCT 70, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Steele, 2018 ONOCT 2.
14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the fact that he was in a [XXX] with Person 1 and the fact that Person 1 was [XXX] at the time of the misconduct. The Panel notes that these factors were not included in the Uncontested Facts but were submitted by the parties in the course of the hearing. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and saving Person 1 from having to testify. Further, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
15The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated abusive conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. 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.
16Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a three-month suspension is within the range of appropriate outcomes in this case. 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 parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on December 8, 2020, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
17The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding anger management is intended to assist in the rehabilitation of the Member and to protect the public. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a trusted member of the community and is intended to ensure that he will not repeat similar misconduct either in the classroom or in the community.
18The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: November 27, 2020
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel
Nancy Saunders, OCT Member, Discipline Panel