DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Corlett 2020 ONOCT 214
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
David Albert Corlett, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
DAVID ALBERT CORLETT (REGISTRATION #404204)
PANEL: Nicola Powadiuk, OCT, Chair
John Cammarata
Shanlee Linton, OCT
HEARD: December 3, 2020 and December 16, 2020
Stephanie Sugar and Noam Uri, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Sheilagh Turkington, for David Albert Corlett
Rebecca Durcan, 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 3, 2020 and December 16, 2020, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2David Albert Corlett (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 13, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that David Albert Corlett 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(f) 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);
(g) 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);
(h) 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:
David Albert Corlett 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 (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).
During the 2015-2016 academic year, Student 1, Student 3 and Student 4 were male students at the School in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class. During the 2015-2016 academic year, Student 2 was a female student at the School in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class.
During the 2015-2016 academic year the Member sometimes yelled at students in his Grade [XXX] class.
During the 2015-2016 academic year the Member made numerous inappropriate comments towards students in his Grade [XXX] class. Sometimes, this was in the course of the Member joking with students and using slang expressions and hyperbolic language. The inappropriate comments included the following:
(a) The Member told Student 1 that if he did not finish his work by the end of the day, a dragon was going to come and kill him. Student 1 thought the comment was meant to motivate him to work faster. Student 1 disliked the comment and disliked the teacher for having made it. The comment made Student 1 angry.
(b) The Member told one or more students that “I’m going to kill you if…”. A number of students considered the Member to be joking. At least one student was not comfortable with these comments and was upset by them.
(c) The Member told Student 2 that “I’m going to break your leg,” if she did not finish a worksheet. Student 2 reported that the comment was made in a joking way and she did not think the teacher was actually going to do what he said. Student 2 was negatively impacted by the comment.
(d) The Member told Student 3 he was going to break his arm because he had messy writing. Student 3 was upset by this comment.
(e) In responding to a student question about why, in art class, they needed to paint three hills rather than two, the Member used the following turn of phrase: the two hills would end up looking like “boobies” or “butts” and, as such, needed to be avoided.
The comments set out in paragraph 5 had a negative impact on some students.
During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member engaged in numerous instances of inappropriate physical contact with students, including:
(a) the Member pulled Student 2’s chair out from under her, causing Student 2 to fall to the ground;
(b) the Member pulled Student 3 across the room by holding onto the sleeve of Student 3’s shirt; and
(c) the Member put his hands on Student 4’s shoulders and twisted Student 4 so that he faced forward in a line up.
The behaviour set out in paragraph 7 had a negative impact on some students.
On or about June 7, 2016, the Board commenced an investigation of the Member. The Member received a letter of discipline dated November 4, 2016. The Member was suspended without pay for five (5) instructional days, and was administratively transferred to another school. The Member was also required to seek anger management counselling and furnish proof of attendance by January 31, 2017. The discipline letter also provided the Member with a coach to support him with classroom management and this was completed in the 2016-2017 school year. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a letter from the Board to the Member dated November 4, 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 1-9 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(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 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 find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as the Member’s conduct is more properly captured by subsection 1(14) and proceeding under both subsection 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. 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 December 16, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 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 his students by making inappropriate remarks to students and making inappropriate physical contact with students.
9The Member abused students verbally contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by making repeated threatening comments to his students. The Member told students that he would kill them, that he would break their leg, and that he would break their arm. While some of the Member’s students considered the Member to be joking when he made such comments, they are nevertheless objectively violent and abusive comments. It is inappropriate for a teacher to make such comments to young students, regardless of the intent and regardless of how these comments were received.
10The Member abused students physically contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member physically abused his students on three occasions. First, the Member pulled Student 2’s chair out from under her. Second, he pulled Student 3 across the room by holding on to the sleeve of the student’s shirt. Finally, the Member put his hands on Student 4’s shoulders and twisted the student around. It is never acceptable for teachers to use unnecessary physical force against their students. The Member’s behaviour in this case negatively impacted some of his students and amounts to physical abuse.
11The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member yelled at, and made threatening and violent comments to, students in his grade [XXX] class. This repeated behaviour amounts to emotional abuse of the Member’s students. The behaviour negatively affected and upset some students, and generally amounts to behaviour that can interfere with the psychological or emotional well-being of students. Regardless of the Member’s intention, it was inappropriate for him to make these comments to grade [XXX] students.
12The Member failed to comply with the College’s by-laws, contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by breaching the standards articulated in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession set out at section 32.02 of the by-laws. Teachers are expected to uphold the Ethical Standards by showing commitment to students’ well-being (“Care”) and respect for students in their professional practice (“Respect”). By his verbal and physical abuse of his students, the Member failed to show commitment to his students’ well-being or respect for his students. As such, his actions were contrary to the Ethical Standards.
13The Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. This section sets out the duties of a teacher. In particular, subsection 264(1)(b) of the Education Act provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. By yelling at his students during class, and by making unnecessary, threatening remarks to students, the Member detracted from his students’ formative education and created a negative and intimidating learning environment, which was at odds with his professional obligations.
14The Member’s verbally and physically abusive conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member failed to act in the best interest of his students by using inappropriate and unprofessional forms of discipline, including the unnecessary use of force against students.
15Additionally, the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. This conduct undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and violates the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.
F. PENALTY Decision
16The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on December 16, 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 two (2) 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. If the Oral Decision and Order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1;
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) within one hundred and eighty (180) 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 classroom management and 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 thirty (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
17The 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. Datoo, 2020 ONOCT 146, Ontario College of Teachers v. Von Eppinghoven, 2020 ONOCT 139, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Blier, 2016 ONOCT 4.
18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the repeated nature of the misconduct and the young age of the children who were verbally and physically abused by the Member. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of other discipline proceedings in his long teaching career. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
19The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand from his peers. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member, will impress upon him the seriousness of his misconduct, 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.
20Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a two-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 two-month 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 parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on December 31, 2020, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
21The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management and anger management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework is intended to encourage reflective practice for the Member, it will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: December 17, 2020
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
John Cammarata Member, Discipline Panel
Shanlee Linton, OCT Member, Discipline Panel