DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario c Hunt
2020 ONOCT 212 Date: 2020-12-15
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
Marieanne Nancy Hunt, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MARIEANNE NANCY HUNT (REGISTRATION #434276)
PANEL: Jonathan Rose, Chair
John Hamilton, OCT
Wanda Percival
HEARD: December 8, 2020
Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Patricia D’Heureux, for Marieanne Nancy Hunt
Erica Richler, 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 December 8, 2020, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Marieanne Nancy Hunt (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 December 18, 2018 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Marieanne Nancy Hunt is guilty of professional misconduct 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);1
(e) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);2
(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);3 and
(h) she 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:
Marieanne Nancy Hunt 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 York Region District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School in Woodbridge, Ontario, [XXX] School, in Vaughan, Ontario or [XXX] School in Maple, Ontario (the “School”).
2011 – 2012 Academic Year
The Member was a teacher at [XXX]School. Student 1 was a male student at the School.
On or about September 16, 2011, the Member:
(a) grabbed and/or held the arm of Student 1;
(b) pulled and/or dragged Student 1 into the school hallway;
(c) pushed Student 1 from behind;
(d) inadvertently caused Student 1 to fall.
Another staff member at the school witnessed the incident in the hallway following class dismissal, and immediately brought the student to the principal’s office to report the conduct that he observed by the Member.
An investigation was launched by the School Board and York Region Children’s Aid Society.
The Children’s Aid Society investigation concluded that the Member used physical force which was excessive or inappropriate. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the discipline letter dated January 9, 2012 where mention is made of the Children’s Aid Society investigation.
The findings of the School Board’s investigation concurred with those of the Children’s Aid Society and concluded that the Member’s conduct constituted professional misconduct. As a result, the Board placed a discipline letter in the Member's file and required her to attend a course on appropriate management of students. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the discipline letter, dated January 9, 2012.
2013 – 2014 Academic Year
The Member was a teacher at [XXX] School. Student 2 was a male student at the school. Student 3 was a female student at the school.
In or about January 2014, the Member grabbed and/or held Student 2 by the shoulders while telling him “you need to listen,” while speaking with him about his reported misconduct during recess.
On or about March 4, 2014, the Member grabbed and/or held Student 3’s arm and removed her arm from her locker after Student 3 refused her verbal instructions to return to her class to await the dismissal bell.
The York Region Children's Aid Society investigated the March 4, 2014 incident and did not verify any child protection concerns. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Children's Aid Society's outcome letter, dated March 21, 2014.
As a result of the March 4, 2014 incident, the Board conducted an investigation. The investigation resulted in a discipline letter dated April 7, 2014 which was placed in the Member’s file. The Member was required to attend training with respect to appropriate interactions with students and boundaries. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the discipline letter dated April 7, 2014.
2016 – 2017 Academic Year
During the 2016 – 2017 academic year, the Member was a teacher at [XXX] School. Student 4 was a male student at the school.
On or about November 7, 2016, the Member yelled loudly at a student, “I wrote on your report card that you talk too much.” This comment was made in front of the class. A parent also heard the Member yell loudly to a student, “You are the most annoying kid ever, you know she’s sick today” in response to her seeing that the student was bothering another student who was not feeling well. This comment was made in front of students.
On or about February 15, 2017, the Member grabbed and/or held Student 4 by the arm.
The York Region Children's Aid Society investigated the February 15, 2017 incident and did not verify any child protection concerns. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Children's Aid Society's outcome letter, dated April 19, 2017.
As a result of these incidents the Member received a written reprimand and a five day suspension without pay. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the discipline letter dated May 26, 2017.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct for purposes of this proceeding only the facts and the 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 no contest 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) (in relation to the Uncontested Facts at paragraph 4), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only], and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations 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 otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) 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 the official publication of the College;
(f) she understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) 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 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 find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.2) and 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. 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). College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw subsection 1(7.2) was made due to the lack of evidence of emotional abuse by the Member. The request to withdraw subsection 1(14) was made as it was duplicative of allegations made under subsection 1(5), with which the College intended to proceed. 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 December 8, 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(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 18 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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 yelled at students, and that she grabbed or held students in the course of discipline on a number of occasions.
9The Panel finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. In particular, the Member’s conduct was contrary to the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. The standard of “Care” requires members to express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. The standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. By yelling at students, making inappropriate comments to students, and by grabbing and/or holding students as a form of discipline, the Member failed to maintain the ethical standards of Care and Respect. Members must not resort to aggressive means when seeking to manage student misbehaviour.
10The Panel finds that the Member abused students verbally. Specifically, in November of 2016, the Member yelled at a student in front of the class instead of addressing her concerns with the student privately. Around the same time, the Member also yelled to a student “you are the most annoying kid ever” in front of other students and in front of a parent. Yelling at students and making such inappropriate comments constitutes verbal abuse by the Member.
11The Panel finds that the Member physically abused a student. In September of 2011, the Member grabbed Student 1’s arm, pulled Student 1 into the hallway, and pushed Student 1 from behind. This was an entirely inappropriate action for the Member to take against a student, regardless of the reason. Members of the profession are expected to conduct themselves in a composed and professional manner and they must not resort to the inappropriate use of physical force against students.
12The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, which sets out the duties of a teacher. In particular, this provision requires members to be positive role models for students and to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. By yelling at students and using physical force to discipline students, the Member failed to encourage her students in the pursuit of learning and to model respectful behaviour for her students.
13The Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour was unprofessional. The Member’s behaviours such as grabbing, pushing, and yelling at students demonstrate her lack of professional judgment. Members of the teaching profession are expected to behave in a respectful manner towards students at all times. The Member engaged in a concerning pattern of inappropriate conduct towards students and did not seem to improve her behaviour after receiving disciplinary letters from the Board.
14Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member in that it undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust that students and the public place in members of the 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 December 8, 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 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 four months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on 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 resuming or commencing a teaching position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration or within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, whichever comes later, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her 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 the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within 30 days of her 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
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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20, Ontario College of Teachers v. Hyde, 2016 ONOCT 25, Ontario College of Teachers v. Blier, 2016 ONOCT 4, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Thomson, 2020 ONOCT 133.
17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the numerous incidents of misconduct at more than one school, and the fact that the Member engaged in similar misconduct even after having received discipline letters from her Board seeking to address her concerning behaviour. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of College discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
18The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated inappropriate conduct, despite warnings from the Board, warrants a reprimand by her peers. Members are expected to serve as role models for students, which the Member failed to do by engaging in verbal, and physical abuse of students. 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.
19Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a four-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 suspension in the range of three to six months 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 parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on December 23, 2020, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding anger management is intended to assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: December 15, 2020
Jonathan Rose
Chair, Discipline Panel
John Hamilton, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Wanda Percival
Member, Discipline Panel