Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers
Ontario College of Teachers v Ramanauskas 2020 ONOCT 210
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
Tom Vytas Ramanauskas, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
TOM VYTAS RAMANAUSKAS (REGISTRATION #398548)
PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair Ann Ciaschini, OCT Stéphane Vallée, OCT
HEARD: November 24, 2020
Andrew Matheson, for the Ontario College of Teachers Lauren Sheffield, for Tom Vytas Ramanauskas Julie Maciura, 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 proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on November 24, 2020, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Tom Vytas Ramanauskas (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.
3Although the status of the Member’s teaching certificate at the time of this hearing is “Cancelled-Resigned”, the Member held a certificate of qualification and registration in good standing at the time of the events in question. Under subsection 14(5)(a) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), a person whose certificate is cancelled continues to be subject to the College’s jurisdiction for professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity referable to any time during which the person held a certificate of qualification and registration under the Act. Accordingly, the Committee has continuing jurisdiction over the Member in this matter.
A. PUBLICATION ban
4The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of 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
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated September 18, 2018 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Tom Vytas Ramanauskas is guilty of professional misconduct and/or that he is incompetent 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);2
(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 an act or 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); and
(g) he displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/ or disregard for the welfare of his students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out his professional responsibilities or that the Member's certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.3
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:
The Member was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers at the relevant times. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 was a female student and Student 2 was a male student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class.
In and around September 2016, the parent of a male student asked the Member whether her son and other students would have their reading evaluated and whether parents could know their child’s reading level. The Member explained his reading program and assessment process, but did not address the parent’s concern about identifying the reading level of her child at that time.
In and around September 2016, Student 1 experienced [XXX]. Student 1 was afraid to be in the [XXX] during [XXX] class on her own as there was no adult supervision. Student 1’s parents and the [XXX] developed plans to assist Student 1 with her [XXX]. The Member was unsuccessful in getting the student to participate for the first three [XXX] classes, which he did not discuss with Student 1’s parent until after the third class. He had spoken with the [XXX] and Student 1’s mother about the issue. The Member should have raised the matter more promptly.
Between November 2016 and February 2017, the Member discussed the United States (“USA”) election with his class in response to students initiating discussion and expressing concerns about Donald Trump’s election. The Member expressed his view about the suggestion of building a wall between the USA and Mexico and further discussed his views about the election with his class, which he ought not to have done.
On or about November 11, 2016, in relation to Remembrance Day, the Member allowed his class to watch a brief clip of the opening scene from the R-rated movie, “Saving Private Ryan,” which showed a veteran (Private Ryan) visiting a war cemetery. Several students cried during the video clip. The Member called the students’ parents to notify them that the students were upset and had cried during the video clip.
In and around May 2017, the Member kept four students in the classroom for detention during recess. The Member started to watch a video clip from the television series, “Game of Thrones” which consisted of a sword-fighting scene. The Member allowed the students to watch the video clip with him which was inappropriate for Grade [XXX] students.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member:
(a) occasionally forgot weekly spelling tests and/or when results were reported to the students and/or parents, some were marked incorrectly;
(b) disclosed Student 2’s math standing to another parent at parent-teacher interviews.
- The Member resigned his membership with the Ontario College of Teachers effective July 30, 2018. The Member’s certificate date with the College is June 30, 1995 [sic]. He has no prior complaints or discipline against him at the College and no prior discipline with his Board.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional), 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 Discipline 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 reference to his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(f) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College 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 and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
7Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (g) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and that the Member is incompetent as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act, be withdrawn. College Counsel sought the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation because it duplicated the subsection 1(14) allegation. College Counsel sought permission to withdraw the 1(7.2) allegation and the allegation of incompetence because the evidence did not support findings under those heads of misconduct. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Panel find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). The narrowing of the subsection 1(18) allegation was a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. The Panel granted these requests.
8Having 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 24, 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 – unprofessional only) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 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.
10The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Act, regulations, or by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Section 32 of the College’s Bylaws requires members to comply with the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. Among other things, members are expected to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice (“Care”). The Member failed to demonstrate care toward Student 1 when he did not promptly discuss with her parents that she was missing [XXX]class because she [XXX]about being alone in the[XXX]. Members are also expected to use appropriate pedagogy, assessment and evaluation in responding to the needs of individual students. The Member did not meet this expectation when he neglected to address a parent’s concern regarding a student’s reading level, and when he occasionally failed to conduct weekly spelling tests, or, after conducting them, marked some tests incorrectly and reported inaccurate results to students or parents.
11The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. As part of their duties, members are expected to encourage students in the pursuit of learning and to serve as positive role models by demonstrating the highest regard for a number of virtues set out at subsection 264(1)(c). The Member acted contrary to these expectations when he failed to address a parent’s concern regarding the reading level of a student and did not promptly address the emotional needs of Student 1 who was [XXX] to attend [XXX] class. Furthermore, he discussed his personal political views with Grade [XXX] students, which was inappropriate.
12The Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member demonstrated a disregard for his professional obligations when he showed students an inappropriate video clip from an R-rated movie that upset students, and when he allowed students to watch a sword fighting scene from a TV-series for adults. Teachers are expected to exercise good judgment, which includes ensuring that the content they share with students is age-appropriate.
13The Member’s conduct is also unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulations 437/97. The Member’s disclosure of Student 2’s math standing to another parent was contrary to the obligation to maintain student confidentiality. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is eroded when members fail to respect student privacy.
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 24, 2020 the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the 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 via 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 impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) Prior to commencing or resuming a Teaching Position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (collectively a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the 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, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee:
(ii) following 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 which:
(i) confirms that the Member has successfully completed the course and reports 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 decision of the Discipline Committee presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Williams, 2016 ONOCT 55.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the case provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the Member repeatedly demonstrated a lack of care for the best interests of students and that the Member’s behaviour had a negative impact on several students following exposure to inappropriate video content. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, which prevented student witnesses from having to testify and saved the time and expense of a contested hearing. The Member, whose certificate has been cancelled following the resignation of his College membership in July 2018, also participated in the discipline process, attended the hearing and 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.
17The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. Teachers are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries, a safe and supportive learning environment, and to execute their professional responsibilities diligently. The Member’s demonstrated lack of care related to student well-being is concerning. Furthermore, the Member’s sharing of inappropriate videos and discussion of inappropriate topics with students demonstrates poor professional judgment. Finally, the Member’s failure to properly conduct and mark spelling tests demonstrates inadequate diligence in the Member’s teaching practice. 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.
18Should the Member wish to re-apply for a teaching certificate, the Panel finds that a course of instruction regarding professional boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member before he returns to the classroom. The coursework would also remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and would help him make better decisions in any future interactions with students and parents.
19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: November 26, 2020
Tom Potter Chair, Discipline Panel
Ann Ciaschini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel