DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Ontario College of Teachers v Chauvin 2020 ONOCT 208

Date: 2020-11-18

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

Paul Chauvin, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

PAUL CHAUVIN (REGISTRATION #199564)

PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Élaine Legault Marlène Marwah

HEARD: November 10, 2020

Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Lise Leduc, for Paul Chauvin 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, Sched. 3, this matter proceeded by way of an electronic hearing.

2Paul Chauvin (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 18, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Paul Chauvin 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 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(e) 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);

(f) 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);

(g) 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. The Member has been a member of the College since 1993. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. Since 1998, the Member has been employed by the Conseil scolaire catholique Providence (the “Board”) as a regular teacher. Since 2010, the Member has taught at École [XXX] (the “School”), in [XXX], Ontario.

April-May 2016

3. On or about April 20, 2016, the Member made inappropriate remarks to a student in a Grade [XXX] class that he was teaching. The student was using her phone in class to listen to music. When the Member told her to turn off the phone, the student said, “Why are you being such an asshole?” The Member replied by shouting, “Who’s being an asshole?” and referred to the student’s use of the phone as “That’s asshole behaviour.”

4. On May 2, 2016, the Member shouted at students in a Grade [XXX] class that he was teaching and made inappropriate remarks, shouting, “You guys know this, I don’t understand, I taught you this.” When a student gave the wrong answer, the Member ridiculed him and shouted, “No! I’m close to losing it! We spent three weeks learning this shit! You’re not listening!” and “I’m so close to saying fuck it! You don’t give two shits about what I’m teaching you!”

5. According to students, the Member often became angry because the students were not asking questions and did not know the answers to the questions that he asked. The Member answered students’ questions rudely and disrespectfully. He often shouted, and the students were afraid of him. They did not feel secure in the classroom with the Member.

6. On June 13, 2016, the Member received a discipline letter from the Board concerning the incidents that took place in April-May 2016. The Board suspended him without pay for one day. Following a grievance and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in February 2017 the Board reimbursed the Member for the one-day suspension. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated June 13, 2016.

February 2018

7. In February 2018, some students in the Grade [XXX] class taught by the Member reported to the School’s Vice-Principal that the Member had made inappropriate remarks concerning his colleagues.

8. On February 1, 2018, in the [XXX] class, the Member was talking about the [XXX] class. He remarked, “I don’t care how much [XXX] [teacher’s name] was on, he should have taught you this.” The comment referred to another teacher who had previously taken sick leave.

9. Again on February 1, 2018, when some students in the [XXX] class had a study period in the cafeteria, the Member came to help them with their assignments. He said to the students, “I can stay for only five minutes; we have a staff meeting and [Principal’s name] is a psychobitch about that,” referring to the Principal of the School.

10. The students were uncomfortable with the Member’s inappropriate remarks concerning his colleagues. They were also afraid to ask any questions in his class. The Member would sometimes reply inappropriately to their questions.

11. On February 21, 2018, the Member received a discipline letter from the Board concerning the incidents on February 1, 2018. The Board suspended him without pay for two days. Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated February 21, 2018.

12. On February 25, 2018, the Member emailed the Principal of the School to apologize for his remark to the students.

13. The Member is still a teacher at the School.

Previous Disciplinary Measure

14. On November 28, 2012, the Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct with regard to an incident that took place on March 6, 2009, when the Member was teaching at another school in the Board. The Member had an argument with a student and “entered into physical contact” with the student, who fell against the lockers in the school hallway. Attached as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Discipline Committee’s decision dated November 28, 2012.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

15. By this document, the Member does not contest the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the "Uncontested Facts").

16. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute 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(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

17. 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 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 Pour parler profession/ Professionally Speaking, the official publication of the College;

(e) he understands that any agreement between the College and the Member with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;

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

18. 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.

19. 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

6College Counsel sought permission to withdraw the allegation of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member had contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. 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 Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 10, 2020 finding that the Member had engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 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 14 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 verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.The Member made crude remarks, ridiculed a student in front of the class when he gave the wrong answer and, when a student used her phone in class, shouted, “Who’s being an asshole?” and “That’s asshole behaviour.” He also made inappropriate remarks to his students concerning his colleagues, saying, “I don’t care how much [XXX] [teacher’s name] was on, he should have taught you this,” and describing his colleague the Principal as a “psychobitch.” The Panel agrees that shouting and making inappropriate or crude remarks to students constitutes verbal abuse.

10The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. He ridiculed a student, shouted and often became so angry that the students were afraid of him, did not dare to ask him questions and felt insecure in his class. The classroom environment created by the Member was not conducive to students’ learning and did not promote their psychological or emotional well-being.

11The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Act, or the regulations, or the bylaws, contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. He failed to observe the ethical standards for the teaching profession, which are set out in section 32.02 of the College’s bylaws. 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 he shouted on several occasions at the students, answered students’ questions rudely and disrespectfully and became angry when they did not understand his explanations. His conduct shows poor professional judgment.

12The Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. One requirement of this provision in the Act is that teachers “encourage the pupils in the pursuit of learning” and that they act as a role model, contrary to the Member’s actions when he ridiculed a student in the classroom, made inappropriate remarks and used crude language when talking to students. Teachers must always control their emotions, demonstrate effective classroom management even in trying circumstances and behave professionally and respectfully at all times. In addition, subsection 264(1)(d) of the Education Act requires teachers to “assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school.” The Member failed in this requirement by making inappropriate remarks concerning his colleagues.

13The Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s behaviour and inappropriate remarks to his students and colleagues showed poor professional judgment on his part and a lack of professionalism.

14Similarly, the Member’s conduct as described above was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and undermined the reputation of the teaching profession.

F. PENALTY Decision

15The 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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) Within 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, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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

16The 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. Vanderburg, 2018 ONOCT 43; Ontario College of Teachers v. Gartshore, 2020 ONOCT 143; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Chong Yen, 2019 ONOCT 28.

17The Panel considered the circumstances in this matter in comparison to the cases provided. Aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct and the fact that his conduct failed to improve, notwithstanding previous disciplinary measures imposed by his Board and the College. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest the misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Moreover, the Member expressed sincere remorse. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

18The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand by his peers for his persistent inappropriate conduct in spite of the previous disciplinary measures imposed by his employer and the College. Members of the teaching profession are expected to ensure a safe and supportive school environment for students. The Member’s conduct failed to satisfy this expectation. His remarks and repeated angry outbursts demonstrate poor professional judgment. The Member was expected to use well-established positive and professional teaching and classroom management strategies that encourage students’ learning and take their individual circumstances and needs into account. 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.

19In view of the Member’s repeated misconduct, 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 suspension of the Member’s 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 such professional misconduct is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will be suspended effective November 25, 2020, that is, 15 days after the Panel’s oral decision and order.

20The Panel considers that, although the Member had already taken a course on anger management relating to his first discipline proceeding before the College’s Discipline Committee in November 2012, a second course will encourage him to reflect on his past actions, remind him of his obligations as a teacher, help him to make better decisions in his interactions with students and colleagues and assist in his rehabilitation.

21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

November 18, 2020

Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel

Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel