DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Ontario College of Teachers v Jackson 2020 ONOCT 219

Date: 2020-12-12

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

Norman Craig Jackson, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

NORMAN CRAIG JACKSON (REGISTRATION #418446)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair

Marlène Marwah

Stéphane Vallée, OCT

HEARD: October 20, 2020

Andrew Matheson and Steven Chadwick, for the Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for Norman Craig Jackson

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 matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on October 20, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). 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.

2Norman Craig Jackson (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation.

3Counsel for the College submitted the Affidavit of Service of Steven Chadwick (Exhibit 3) sworn on October 16, 2020, to show that the Member had been served with the appropriate documents and informed of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought by the College.

4Based on Exhibit 3, the Panel was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and that he was aware of the time and date of the hearing and the penalty being sought by the College. The Member did not appear and the Panel heard this matter in his absence.

A. PUBLICATION ban

5The 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

6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated March 13, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Norman Craig Jackson 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);

(b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);¹

(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(d) he failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);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);³

(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 contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);

(h) he contravened a law, the contravention of which has caused or may cause a student who is under the member’s professional supervision to be put at or to remain at risk, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(17);

(i) 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);

(j) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS

1. Norman Craig Jackson is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

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

3. During the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member was a Grade [XXX] to [XXX] teacher at the School.

4. On or about February 27, 2017, the Member struck a [XXX]-year old male student (“Student 1”) in the stomach and hit Student 1 over the head with a stack of papers.

5. On or about February 27, 2017, the Member called a male student (“Student 2”) a “fuckin’ retard”.⁴

6. On or about February 27, 2017 the Member made the following comments to students in his class:⁵

(a) “If you want to succeed in this class you need to stop fucking around”;

(b) “Get the fuck out of my class”;

(c) Referred to students as “shit disturbers”.

7. On August 4, 2017, the Member was found guilty of assault, contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

C. THE MEMBER’S PLEA

7As the Member was not present, the Panel proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

D. THE EVIDENCE

8College Counsel entered into evidence the Registered Member Information for Norman Craig Jackson (Exhibit 2), which indicates that the Member was a member of the College at the time of the alleged events. The College also entered into evidence a Brief of Court Documents - Her Majesty the Queen v. Norman Craig Jackson (Exhibit 4), which contains the following documents:

1. Certified Copy of Court Information, sworn March 20, 2017; and

2. Certified Copy of the Transcript of Court Proceedings before Justice K. McLeod in the Ontario Court of Justice, August 4, 2017.

9In accordance with Section 22.1 of the Evidence Act (Ontario), R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23 and Rule 13.03 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”), the Panel accepts the certified copy of the Court Information as proof that the Member committed the criminal offences outlined therein. The Member was found guilty before the Ontario Court of Justice, no appeal has been taken, and the time for an appeal has expired.

10Pursuant to Rule 13.04 of the Rules, the Panel admits as ancillary to the certified copy of the Court Information the findings of fact involving the Member contained in the Transcript of Court Proceedings before Justice K. McLeod of the Ontario Court of Justice.

11The evidence presented in Exhibit 4 establishes that on August 4, 2017, in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Member was found guilty of one count of assault in relation to Student 1, contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code.

12Justice McLeod found that the Member assaulted Student 1 in the stomach area, which caused Student 1 to double over. The Member then whacked Student 1 on his head with a stack of papers. Justice McLeod further found that following this incident, the Member turned himself in to the police, voluntarily resigned from the school board, and has taken steps to recognize his anger issues, such as taking a 10-week anger management course. Justice McLeod was of the opinion that, despite the assault, the Member was a good man and as such, she ordered that the Member receive an absolute discharge.

13The evidence presented in Exhibit 4 also includes details from a Victim Impact Statement written by Student 1, in which he described the effect that the Member’s conduct had on his emotional well-being. In his statement, Student 1 described experiencing significant embarrassment following the incident. Student 1 also stated that, at the time of the sentencing hearing, he continued to fear the Member.

E. SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING

14Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(11), and 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw subsections 1(7) and 1(11) was requested because the College did not have evidence to support these allegations. The request to withdraw subsection 1(14) was made because the College believes that the Member’s misconduct is sufficiently covered by subsection 1(5). The Panel granted these requests.

15College Counsel submitted that the Member’s conduct, as detailed in the findings of Justice McLeod in Exhibit 4 provide a sufficient basis to justify a finding of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.1), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18), and 1(19).

16College Counsel further submitted that the fact that the Member received an absolute discharge does not negate the fact that there was an admission of guilt by the Member and a finding of guilt by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. The College submitted that the Panel is entitled to rely on the Member’s admissions before the criminal court and the findings of Justice McLeod, notwithstanding the fact that the Member ultimately received an absolute discharge and a conviction was not entered.

F. DECISION ON FINDING

17The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.

18Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 20, 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), 1(15), 1(16), 1(17), 1(18), and 1(19).

G. REASONS FOR DECISION

19Based on the evidence contained within the Brief of Court Documents, namely the admissions of the Member and the findings of Justice McLeod, the Panel finds that the College has proven on a balance of probabilities that the Member struck Student 1 in the stomach and hit him over the head with a stack of papers. This occurred in the presence of other students at the School. The College has also proven that the Member pled guilty to committing an assault on Student 1, and that a finding of guilt was made by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice.

20The Panel finds that the Member breached the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In assaulting Student 1 in the stomach and hitting him over the head with a stack of papers, the Member’s behaviour was so notorious that expert evidence of the standard is not required to find that his actions were contrary to the standards of the teaching profession. In particular, the Panel finds that the Member failed to adhere to the ethical standards of the teaching profession. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to express their commitment to students’ well-being through using professional judgment and empathy. Further, the ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour the human dignity of their students. The Member failed to maintain the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect” when he assaulted Student 1.

21The Panel finds that the Member engaged in physical abuse of a student contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The evidence presented confirms that the Member assaulted Student 1 in the stomach area and that he hit him over the head with a stack of papers. Both actions amount to physical abuse of a student.

22The Member’s conduct breached section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. The section requires members to be positive role models for students and to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. The Member’s assault of Student 1 was at odds with his duties as a teacher as outlined in the Education Act. The Member ought to have communicated effectively with the student rather than resorting to physical contact.

23The fact that the Member admitted to and was found guilty of assault of Student 1 demonstrates that the Member contravened a law relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, and which has caused a student under the Member’s supervision to be put at risk contrary to subsections 1(16) and 1(17) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

24By assaulting Student 1, the Member acted in a way that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to exercise good judgment and compassion for students and not to resort to physically abusing their students for any reason.

25Similarly, the Member’s conduct towards Student 1 was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, in that it undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust that the public places in members.

H. SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY

26The College submitted that the appropriate penalty in this case is a written reprimand, a three-month suspension, and coursework regarding classroom management, anger management, and appropriate discipline techniques. College Counsel submitted that this penalty appropriately considers the guiding principles of specific deterrence, general deterrence, remediation, and public protection.

27College Counsel presented the Panel with four similar cases in order to establish that the proposed penalty was appropriate and that it fell within the range of penalties previously ordered for similar misconduct: Ontario College of Teachers v. MacAdam, 2019 ONOCT 3; Ontario College of Teachers v. Dayfoot, 2018 ONOCT 73; Ontario College of Teachers v. Marquis, 2020 ONOCT 164; and Ontario College of Teachers v. McPherson, 2019 ONOCT 11. These cases demonstrate that the appropriate penalty for physical abuse of a student of a similar nature as in this case is a reprimand, a suspension of zero to six months, and coursework.

I. PENALTY DECISION

28On October 20, 2020, the Panel made the following order as to penalty:

1. The Member is directed to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered in writing, 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 suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three 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.

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations is to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) Prior to commencing any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, 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 appropriate discipline techniques, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee in this matter, as well as any documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter; and

(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; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course practitioner 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.

J. REASONS FOR PENALTY

29In arriving at its decision with respect to penalty, the Panel carefully considered the College’s submissions. The Panel was also mindful of the guiding principles that penalty orders should address, including specific and general deterrence, remediation (in appropriate cases), and public protection. In cases such as this, where the Member’s professional misconduct involved the physical abuse of a student, the objectives of deterrence and public protection are of primary concern to the Panel. The Panel also recognizes the principle that like cases should be treated alike. The penalty proposed by the College in this case falls with the range of penalties ordered in several similar cases previously before the Discipline Committee.

30The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is the fact that the Member’s conduct led to embarrassment and harm for Student 1. There are several mitigating factors in the Member’s case. First, the physical contact made by the Member was very brief and there was no evidence that Student 1 sustained long-lasting injuries as a result of the assault. Second, the Member voluntarily resigned from the Board and, at the time of his sentencing, was in the process of completing a course regarding anger management. Finally, the Member has not been the subject of discipline prior to this incident and has not had any disciplinary issues since.

31The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members are expected to create a safe and supportive learning environment for their students, 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.

32Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension as proposed by College Counsel is reasonable and appropriate. The cases noted above defined the appropriate range of suspension at zero to six months. The conduct in this case appropriately falls in the middle of this range, since it was more severe than the cases in which no suspension was ordered but less severe than the cases in which a six-month suspension was ordered. 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.

33The Panel takes note that the Member has completed several weeks of an anger management course of his own volition. If the Member had not done so, it would have been appropriate for the Panel to order that the Member complete this course prior to returning to teaching. However, it is appropriate for the Member to complete the additional coursework submitted by College Counsel regarding classroom management and appropriate discipline techniques. The Panel finds that this course 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 decisions in any future interactions with students.

34The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: December 12, 2020

Rebecca Forte, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel

Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
3. 3Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
4. 4Particular relates to withdrawn allegation.
5. 5Particular relates to withdrawn allegation.