DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Bennett 2021 ONOCT 107

Date: 2021-10-05

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

Lois Elizabeth Bennett, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

LOIS ELIZABETH BENNETT (REGISTRATION #180634)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair

Emile Ramlochan

Jessica Saffran Reimers, OCT

HEARD: September 24, 2021

Yufei (Fiona) Wang, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Amin Nur, for Lois Elizabeth Bennett

Renée Kopp, 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 September 24, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Lois Elizabeth Bennett (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 July 22, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Lois Elizabeth Bennett 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);

(e) 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);

(f) 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);

(g) she 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. Lois Elizabeth Bennett is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member obtained an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate on June 30, 1983 and a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on May 20, 1997. Attached as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

3. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX] teacher at [XXX] Institute (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.

4. The Member has no prior discipline history with the College.

5. At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were male Grade [XXX] students at the School; Student 3, Student 4, Student 5, and Student 6 were female Grade [XXX] students at the School.

Inappropriate Comments

6. On or about September 4, 2018, when the Member was calling out students’ names, the Member asked Student 1 whether he was [XXX] and said that his first name was not [XXX].

7. On or about September 10, 2018, when students were working in groups, the Member came to Student 1’s desk and asked him what he was doing. Student 1 said he was done with his work. The Member said to Student 1 words to the effect of “Oh are you sure no one is doing it for you?” and “I’ll bet your room is messy, you probably have underwear all over your room and your mom and dad are picking it up for you.” The Member’s comment made Student 1 “uncomfortable.”

8. At one point, sometime between September 2018 and November 2018, the Member complimented on the looks of Student 2.

9. At one point, sometime between September 2018 and November 2018, the Member told Student 3 how nice her hair was and that she liked it better curly than straight.

10. At various times between September 2018 and November 2018, the Member called students “puppies” and/or “babies,” or words to that effect.

Inappropriate Physical Contact

11. On or about September 10, 2018, Student 1 was standing next to a classroom. The Member approached Student 1 from behind, grabbed his left arm, and tried to twist it backward. Student 1 pulled his arm away, asked the Member to stop, and tried to walk away. The Member then grabbed Student 1’s right arm and tried to pull it back. Student 1 got his arm away again, asked the Member to stop, and walked away. The Member came from behind of Student 1 and hooked one of his feet with her foot, which caused Student 1 to stumble. Student 1 asked the Member what she was doing and to stop touching him. The Member told Student 1 that she was “joking around” with Student 1. The Member’s conduct made Student 1 “mad.”

12. At one point, sometime between September 2018 and November 2018, Student 3 was asking the Member for help, but the Member was busy with another student. The Member asked Student 3 to hold her hand so that she would not forget to come to Student 3 next. The Member held Student 3’s wrist, slowly moved to her fingertips, and then held Student 3’s hand with fingers clasped.

13. Between September 2018 and November 2018, on more than one occasion, the Member stroked Student 3’s hair while the Member was working with her.

14. At one point, sometime between September 2018 and November 2018, Student 3 was standing by the classroom door. The Member grabbed the belt loop on the back of Student 3’s jeans, pulled her back, and asked Student 3 to get back and sit down. The Member’s conduct made Student 3 “angry.”

15. On another occasion, sometime between September 2018 and November 2018, Student 3 was at a local restaurant and the Member was behind her in line to pay. The Member took hold of the belt loop on the back of Student 3’s jeans and pulled her backward, towards her. The Member then said to Student 3, “I didn’t see you in class this morning.” The Member’s conduct made Student 3 “uncomfortable” and “angry.”

16. On another date, sometime between September 2018 and November 2018, while Student 4 was stretching at her desk, the Member walked by, touched the side of Student 4’s body, and made a downward movement with her finger. Student 4 said she cried after this incident because it made her anxious.

17. At another point, sometime between September 2018 and November 2018, Student 5 went to ask the Member a question. Student 5 was wearing ripped jeans and her skin showed through. The Member touched Student 5’s leg and asked if she was cold.

18. On another occasion, sometime between September 2018 and November 2018, the Member touched student 6’s leg to keep it from moving.

19. Between September 2018 and November 2018, the Member regularly massaged students’ shoulders, arms and/or hands in class. The Member’s conduct made students “cringe” and feel “uncomfortable” and “weird.”

20. On October 11, 2018, the Board issued the Member a letter of discipline for her inappropriate physical interactions with Student 1. Attached as Appendix “B” is a copy of the letter of discipline dated October 11, 2018.

21. In November 2018, the Board reported the Member’s alleged inappropriate touching of students to the Toronto Police Service (the “Police”) and the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”). The Police and CAS closed their investigations, with no charges laid and no findings made against the Member.

22. On January 9, 2019, the Board issued another letter of discipline to the Member for her inappropriate physical interactions with students. The Member was suspended for five days without pay. The suspension was later grieved by the Member and was reduced to three days The Board also required the Member to provide evidence to the School’s Principal that she addressed her professional development needs with respect to boundaries with students. Attached as Appendix “C” is a copy of the letter of discipline dated January 9, 2019. Attached as Appendix “D” is a copy of a letter from the Board confirming the Member’s grievance was resolved dated June 6, 2019.

23. On February 19, 2019, the Member completed a workshop on professional boundaries presented by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF). Attached as Appendix “E” is a copy of a letter of completion from OSSTF dated February 20, 2019.

GUILTY PLEA

24. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-23 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

25. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 5-22 of the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

26. 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) 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;

(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or the opportunity to have obtained legal advice.

27. 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

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 24, 2021 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.

8The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The standards of the profession include the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. Among other things, the ethical standards expect members to express their commitment to students’ well-being through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy (“Care”) and to honour human dignity and foster emotional wellness (“Respect”). Members are also required to treat students equitably and with respect (“Commitment to Student and Student Learning”) and to create safe and supportive learning communities (“Leadership in Learning Communities”) as described in the standards of practice. The Member made insulting or disparaging comments to students and commented to students about their physical appearance. The Member’s untoward comments failed to demonstrate equitable treatment and respect for students. The Member also intruded on students’ personal space by repeatedly making unnecessary and unwanted physical contact with them. The Member’s intrusive and uninvited physical contact, which made students “mad”, “uncomfortable” and “angry” demonstrated poor professional judgment, inadequate care and respect for the well-being and dignity of students and created an unsafe learning environment. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct was inconsistent with the standards of the profession.

9The Member abused students verbally contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by referring to Grade [XXX] students as “puppies” or “babies” or using words to that effect, by commenting on a student’s looks, and by making disparaging and culturally insensitive comments. More specifically, the Member insinuated to Student 1 that someone else was completing his academic work, that he was untidy and that his parents needed to pick up after him and questioned him about the ethnic origins of his name in front of his peers. The Member also told Student 3 that she liked her hair better curly. Comments by a teacher that compliment or draw attention to a student’s appearance, that infantilize students, that undermine students’ academic abilities, or that personally insult them are verbally abusive.

10The Member abused students physically contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member regularly made unnecessary physical contact with students. She massaged students’ shoulders, arms and/or hands in the classroom, stroked a female student’s hair and held her wrist, and touched female students’ legs. The Member’s physical contact was also aggressive in some instances. For example, the Member grabbed Student 1’s right arm and tried to pull it back while “joking around.” After Student 1 asked the Member to stop and walked away, the Member came up behind Student 1 again and hooked her foot around one of his feet, which made him “mad” and caused him to stumble. The Member also grabbed the belt loop on the back of Student 3’s jeans to pull her back. The Member did this once in the classroom to get Student 3 to sit down, and once in line at a local restaurant to question the student about missing class. It is inappropriate for teachers to use physical force to joke with students, to get their attention or to elicit their cooperation, and even more so to continue that behaviour once a student has asked it to stop. It is also unacceptable for members to make uninvited physical contact with students as a means of praise or encouragement. The Member’s conduct was a violation of students’ bodily integrity and therefore constitutes physical abuse.

11The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Psychological or emotional abuse is behaviour that can seriously interfere with a student’s cognitive, emotional, psychological or social development. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s intrusive physical contact “was a source of significant discomfort and upset to students” (Exhibit 2 at Tab B). Students reported that when they were touched by the Member, they felt “angry”, “mad”, “uncomfortable”, “weird” or it caused them to “cringe” or to feel “anxious” and “cry”. Further, the Member’s insulting and culturally insensitive comments made at least one student uncomfortable. The Panel finds that it would reasonably have had a negative psychological or emotional impact on students for a teacher to routinely make uninvited physical contact or to infantilize or belittle them. The Member’s conduct, therefore, amounts to psychological or emotional abuse of students.

12The 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. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority. They are required to encourage students in the pursuit of learning and to act as positive role models who exhibit strong moral values and a high level of integrity, as described at subsections 264(1)(b) and (c) of the Education Act. By her unwanted and unnecessary physical intrusions with students, some of which were aggressive, and her untoward remarks to students, which upset them, the Member acted contrary to these duties. The Member failed to model proper respect for students’ physical boundaries and created a negative school experience that detracted from student learning.

13The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to interact with students in a professional manner, to demonstrate maturity when interacting with students, and to maintain appropriate student-teacher boundaries. The Member’s conduct demonstrates poor professional judgment and is contrary to the professional training received by the Member in this regard. Further, the Member demonstrated a lack of insight into her conduct when, following a discipline letter from the Board regarding inappropriate physical contact with Student 1, the Member continued to make physical contact with students, which resulted in a report to the Police and CAS and a second letter of discipline from the Board addressing similar boundary violations with students. The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s conduct can properly be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

14Finally, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is diminished when teachers engage in intrusive and untoward behaviour that makes students uncomfortable or upset at school.

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 September 24, 2021, 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 by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. 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 Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee in this matter; and

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 90 days of the Member returning to teaching or commencing any position for which a Certificate of Qualification is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, two courses of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar, one regarding professional boundaries and boundary violations and a separate course regarding cultural sensitivity. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has completed a course on professional boundaries and boundary violations as of the date of the Decision and Order of the Committee. The course regarding cultural sensitivity should be subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a 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; 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 her 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.

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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Kpodjie, 2018 ONOCT 50, Ontario College of Teachers v. Warland, 2021 ONOCT 77, Ontario College of Teachers v. Blew, 2018 ONOCT 7, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Vite, 2020 ONOCT 145.

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are two aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member’s misconduct involved multiple students and caused several students to experience emotional distress. Second, the Member’s behaviour persisted after she was disciplined by her Board regarding inappropriate physical contact with a student. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member entered into a resolution with the College, saving student witnesses from having to testify and the time and expense of a contested hearing. Further, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past and has otherwise had a lengthy and unblemished teaching career since 1983. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

18The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate and disrespectful interactions with students and the distress that her behaviour caused students warrants a reprimand. 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 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 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 October 9, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

20The Panel acknowledges that the Member has already completed a course regarding professional boundaries and boundary violations on February 19, 2019 (Exhibit 2 at Tab E). After receiving additional submissions from the parties on October 3, 2021, the Panel is satisfied that the Member need not complete a second course regarding professional boundaries and boundary violations. However, the Member must still complete the course regarding cultural sensitivity. The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding cultural sensitivity will further 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.