DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Ontario College of Teachers v Knight 2020 ONOCT 216

Date: 2020-12-17

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

Patrick Conrad Knight, OCT a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

PATRICK CONRAD KNIGHT (REGISTRATION #635386)

PANEL: Nicola Powadiuk, OCT, Chair

John Cammarata

Shanlee Linton, OCT

HEARD: December 3, 2020 and December 16, 2020

Stephanie Sugar, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Angela Zhu, for Patrick Conrad Knight

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.

2Patrick Conrad Knight (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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 February 24, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Patrick Conrad Knight 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, specifically section 32 of 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. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Patrick Conrad Knight was 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 respecting the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the York Region District School Board (the “Board”) as a music teacher at [XXX] school (the “School”) in Newmarket, Ontario.

3. At all material times, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student in the School band. Student 2, Student 3, Student 4 and Student 5 were female students in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class.

4. In or around March 2017, concerns about the Member were brought to the attention of the School’s administration by the parent of Student 1. During [XXX] the Member, in response to Student 1’s error, took the [XXX] from Student 1’s hand and told him not to [XXX]. Student 1 became upset and cried after being embarrassed in front of his classmates.

5. During the 2016-2017 academic year, on occasion when the Member got frustrated with his students during [XXX] class and/or [XXX], he slammed the classroom door to get the students’ attention. On occasion, he would also strike the whiteboard with a baton. He also used sarcasm and a loud voice to address the students and get their attention. This made the students in his class feel uncomfortable. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of a discipline letter dated April 24, 2017.

6. During the 2017-2018 academic year, at the [XXX], Student 2 took a video of her peers verbally harassing the Member in the context of the Member’s [XXX]. The Member admonished the group of students for playing this game of “Truth or Dare” and yelled at Student 2 for taking a video of him without his permission. Student 2 was not aware that she required permission to take a video. On the bus ride back from the event, the Member gave a speech to the students on the bus about taking videos without permission and singled out Student 2 to her peers on the bus. This made Student 2 feel intimidated and uncomfortable.

7. During the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 2 ran for a Student Council position at the School. Student 2 asked another [XXX] teacher for his endorsement and did not ask the Member for his. Although the Member was not asked by Student 2 for his endorsement, he offered to sign it anyway. Subsequently, the Member approached Student 2 and told her that he signed the form even though she had taken a video without permission. The Member went on to explain to Student 2 that another student had been suspended for taking a photograph of the Member without his permission and that he did not want that to happen to Student 2 because she, Student 2, was a good student who had made a poor decision. Student 2 felt threatened and scared as a result of the Member’s words and conduct.

8. In or around February 2018, Student 2 advised the Member that she would not be able to attend class as a result of a [XXX]. The event finished early and Student 2 went to class. When she arrived in class, the Member threw a paper airplane in her direction. The Member continued on with the lesson. Student 2 was talking and not focused on the class. The Member raised his voice at Student 2 and told her to stop distracting others. When Student 2 tried to explain, the Member cut her off in front of her classmates which made Student 2 feel embarrassed. The Member knew that Student 2 was upset, but did not follow up with her.

9. In or around February 2018, Student 3 dropped something from her [XXX]. The Member got angry and told her that he had [XXX] and that the Student’s actions were distraction [sic] and the Student should stop. Student 3 told the Member that it was an accident and was confused by the Member’s reaction.

10. In or around February 2018, Student 4 made a joke in class. The Member was upset and yelled at Student 4. This made Student 4 feel uncomfortable and embarrassed.

11. In the Spring of 2018, the Member told Student 5 that the chocolate milk she was drinking during [XXX] class was the “Anti-Christ” for [XXX]. The Member asked Student 5 to read the sugar content of the drink out loud to the class. The Member told Student 5 that the chocolate milk was not good for her. Student 5 left the classroom visibly upset. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the discipline letter dated March 21, 2018.

Prior Disciplinary History at the Board

12. The Member also received verbal and written reprimands for previous incidents. In 2014, the Member received a verbal reprimand regarding inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Record of Employee Verbal Reprimand dated October 10, 2014.

Current Status

13. The Member is currently teaching at [XXX] School within the Board.

GUILTY PLEA

14. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

15. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted 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(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).

16. 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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’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;

(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed 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.

17. In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, 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 Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. While the Admitted facts demonstrate that the Member used inappropriate classroom management techniques such as yelling at and embarrassing students, the Panel has also placed great weight on the Member’s admission that his behaviour amounts to professional misconduct under the headings set out above.

9The Member verbally abused students in his class by raising his voice, yelling at students, and singling out students with derogatory remarks. For example, the Member yelled at Student 4 in response to the student making a joke in the class. This was an inappropriate reaction by the Member and this behaviour amounts to verbal abuse of a student.

10The Member emotionally or psychologically abused a student. In the spring of 2018, the Member inappropriately shamed Student 5 about her choice to drink chocolate milk during class by telling her that it was the “Anti-Christ” for [XXX] and by making her read the sugar content of the drink out loud to the class. Shaming a student in front of the class for something as innocuous as drinking chocolate milk is entirely inappropriate and constitutes emotional or psychological abuse of a student. The Admitted Facts also demonstrate that Student 5 was visibly upset by the Member’s actions.

11The Member failed to comply with the College’s by-laws 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 yelling at his students, and employing discipline strategies that embarrassed and upset students, the Member failed to demonstrate care and respect for his students contrary to by-law 32.02.

12The Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 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, using sarcasm to address students, slamming the classroom door, and striking the whiteboard with a baton the Member created a negative and intimidating learning environment, which was at odds with his duties as a teacher.

13The Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. In particular, by raising his voice at students and by singling students out for their behaviour, the Member employed unprofessional classroom management techniques.

14Similarly, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member of the profession. The Member admitted that, through his treatment of his students, he undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.

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 16, 2020, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. 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”);

2. 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 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 and classroom 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) 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

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. Nicolson, 2017 ONOCT 85, Ontario College of Teachers v. Orme, 2020 ONOCT 148, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Ashford-Smith, 2014 ONOCT 3.

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. Overall, the Member’s misconduct in this case was either similar to or less serious than the misconduct in the cases provided. There are a number of mitigating factors in the Member’s case. First, most of the member’s behaviour in the Agreed Facts involves very brief or minor incidents of verbal or psychological abuse. Second, the Member did not contest the misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Third, the Panel recognizes that the Member has expressed remorse and taken initiative to improve his teaching strategies and anger management. Finally, the Member has not been the subject of College discipline prior to this incident and has not had any disciplinary issues since. After considering these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

18The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members are expected to act professionally while performing their teaching duties, which the Member failed to do by his misconduct. 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.

19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding anger management and classroom management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better professional decisions in any future interactions with students.

20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.