DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
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
Melissa Anne Velec, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MELISSA ANNE VELEC (REGISTRATION #419226)
PANEL: Emile Ramlochan, Chair Rebecca Forte, OCT Diane Freeman
HEARD: October 1, 2021
Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Melissa Anne Velec
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 October 1, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Melissa Anne Velec (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have 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 3, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Melissa Anne Velec is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(b) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) she failed to keep records as required by her professional duties, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(10);
(d) she failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(e) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, and specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(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, including Regulation 298, 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);
(h) 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:
Melissa Anne Velec 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 with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a Grade [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Mississauga, Ontario.
September – October 2018
The Principal of the School requested a meeting with the Member that was scheduled to take place on September 7, 2018. The purpose of the meeting was to review a number of issues with the Member including incidents of apparent insubordination of the Principal.
During a meeting with the Principal of the School on September 7, 2018 and before the Principal had an opportunity to explain the purpose of the meeting and/or review the agenda, the Member walked out of the meeting and took the Principal’s agenda and notes with her.
Following this meeting, the Member was directed to report to Employee Relations office of the Board and to return the Principal’s agenda and notes related to the September 7, 2018 meeting. Despite this direction, the Member did not attend at the Employee Relations office and did not return the Principal’s agenda and/or notes.
On September 19, 2018, the Principal spoke with the Member to advise her that the Member was required to attend a meeting with Employee Relations on September 20, 2018. The Principal also provided a letter to the Member conveying the same information.
On September 20, 2018, when the Principal approached the Member to remind her to attend the meeting with Employee Relations, the Member responded inappropriately to the reminder. The Member made inappropriate and loud remarks to staff in the schoolyard with respect to the Principal and/or the Principal’s communications. The Member did not attend the meeting as scheduled.
Following the Member’s outburst at the School and her failure to attend the meeting scheduled for September 20, 2018, Board officials attempted to re-schedule the meeting. The Board officials attempted to reach the Member several times. The Board officials sent her email communications as well as left voicemail messages to advise her that the meeting was re-scheduled to take place on October 3, 2018. The Member did not respond to the Board attempts at contacting her and the Member did not attend the meeting.
Subsequently, the Member did speak with Employee Relations on October 11, 2018. The meeting was re-scheduled to take place on October 15, 2018 and the Member was advised that her attendance at the meeting was mandatory. The Member again, failed to attend the October 15, 2018 without providing an explanation for her failure to attend the meeting.
On October 17, 2018, the Member was advised that she was considered absent without authorization and that effective October 17, 2018, the Member was suspended without pay for a period of three days. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of letters dated December 6, 2018 regarding a written warning and the three day suspension.
January 2019
Beginning in January 2019, the Member began engaging in a pattern of behaviour where she failed to prepare and/provide [sic] teaching plans and failed to ensure that the supply binder was up to date.
On January 16, 2019, the Member called to advise that she would not be at work. The Member did not leave any plans and/or dispersal forms in the classroom for use by the supply teacher and the supply binder was not kept in professional condition. The Principal spoke to the Member and advised her that it was her obligation to provide students with instruction, to inform the School office of her absence and to ensure that the supply binder was kept up to date with accurate information.
On January 25, 2019, the Member called in to advise that she would not be at work. Again, the Member’s teaching plans were not complete and were very skeletal in nature. A retired teacher was the supply teacher on this occasion. The retired teacher spoke to the Principal regarding the teaching plans. The Principal again spoke to the Member to remind her that it [sic] the Member’s obligation to provide instructions to students as well as to ensure that the supply binder was organized and had accurate information. The Principal also reminded the Member that during the staff meeting held on January 21, 2019, staff had been reminded about the procedures for reporting absences as well as the requirement to ensure that teaching plans were prepared and left for the supply teacher.
On January 30, 2019, there was a School team meeting to discuss one of the Member’s students. An email and agenda were provided in advance of the meeting to the team including the Member. The Member came to the team meeting unprepared and with very limited notes with respect to the student who was being discussed. In addition, the Member failed to bring examples of the student’s work to share and was not able to answer any questions about the student’s progress. The Member responded to many questions about the student with a shoulder shrug and/or by saying “I don’t know,” or “I can’t get any work from the student because of behaviour” or words to that effect.
At the end of the team meeting, the Member was given a template for data collection to track the student’s behaviour and was asked to resubmit notes to the team. Following the meeting, reminder emails were sent to the Member. The Member ultimately provided about 10 pages of the student’s work which were left in the Principal’s mailbox with no explanation. The materials provided were late and incomplete.
In January 2019, the Member first attempted to access the report cards on the report card writing day. This led the School to incur the cost of hiring a long-term occasional teacher to assist the Member with report cards. Ultimately, while the report cards were submitted on time, the information contained in the report cards was not satisfactory. There were conflicting marks contained in one or more report cards. The Member was asked to re-assess those students.
Absences and Tardiness
The Member habitually arrived late to School despite being told on numerous occasions by the Principal to arrive on time. The start of the school day was 8:15 a.m.
On February 4, 2019, the Member arrived late to School. She arrived at 8:35 a.m. The Member did not telephone the School to advise that she was running late. The Principal reminded the Member of the bell times and to call the School when she was going to be late. The Member’s class was left unsupervised during that time.
On February 12, 2019, the Member arrived late and at approximately 8:26 a.m. The Member did not call the school office to advise that she would be running late. The Member did not go straight to her classroom, but stood in the office during the morning announcements. The Principal again reminded the Member of the bell times and that she should call the office if she was running late. The Member’s class was left unsupervised during this time.
On March 18, 2019, the Member was absent from School and entered a personal illness day into the Board’s tracking system. The Member entered her absence past the deadline and did not ensure that she had supply coverage in place for the day.
The following day, the Member informed the Principal that she missed a meeting scheduled for the day before (March 18, 2019) because she was “stuck on a plane.” The Principal questioned the Member regarding the entry of a personal illness day absence the day before, when in fact, the Member was not ill.
Parent-Teacher Interviews and Parent Communications/Interactions
Parent-teacher interviews were held on February 7, 2019. Consistent with the practice at the school, the Member was asked by the Principal to provide a list of parents she met with and the times she met with them. The Member did not comply with this requirement. Many of the follow-up required following parent-teacher interviews were not completed.
The Member was asked to provide the Principal with her parent communication log and interview list. This information was not provided to the Principal.
On February 16, 2019, the Principal received a phone call from a parent of a female student in the Member’s class. The student told her parent that she did not want to go to School because the Member was angry and yelled in class. The Principal spoke to the Member about yelling in class and conveyed to the Member that yelling was not an appropriate classroom management strategy.
On March 1, 2019, a parent of another female student called the Principal. The parent told the Principal that the Member was not willing to share information with the student’s tutor about what was covered in class. The parent told the Principal that the Member advised that she was not allowed to share information with the tutor because it was against school policy. Further, the parent advised the Principal that no assessments were sent home with the student. The parent was frustrated and expressed the need to understand how the student was performing in class to help the tutor plan for sessions with the student. Additionally, the parent also informed the Principal that the student was afraid to ask the Member for help, did not want to go to school and cried at night. The parent also explained that they had waited seven days for a call back from the Member. When the Member did call, she called the house number during the day. She did not call the business and/or cell numbers provided to her.
Subsequent to the incidents in paragraphs 24 and 25 above, the Principal asked the Member to do a monthly calendar in which she should detail the content focus for the month as well as the steps for follow-up with the parent. The Member agreed to do so, but did not follow through on both requests.
In addition, the Principal again asked to see the Member’s parent communication log. The Member declined to provide it and indicated that it was at home. The parent communication log was never provided to the Principal.
On March 3, 2019, the Principal sent an email to the Member and asked her to arrange some time for her to meet with the Vice-Principal to discuss parent calls that came into the School the previous week regarding the Member’s class. The Principal asked the Member to come prepared for the meeting with a list of parents with whom she met with during parent-teacher interviews in February 2019. At the meeting, the Member was asked to follow-up with parents whom she was not able to connect with during parent-teacher interviews. The Member was to provide the Principal and the Vice-Principal with an update regarding the attempts to connect with parents.
On March 8, 2019, the Principal followed up with the Member regarding the information that had been requested. The Member did not provide the Principal and/or Vice-Principal with the parent communication log or the parent list.
The Member was requested to attend a meeting on the same day – March 8, 2019 – to discuss when the Principal could expect the items indicated above. The Member did not attend the meeting. Later that day, the Principal scheduled a meeting on March 18, 2019 in order to discuss when the requested items could be obtained from the Member.
The Member did not keep records of her communications with parents as required by her professional obligations.
Student Disciplinary Issues
On February 17, 2019, the Member called the school office, the school secretary and/or the Principal approximately eight times during the day regarding student behaviour issues. This was not appropriate and was not proper classroom management practice.
On February 25 and 26, 2019, the Member call the School office and/or the Principal’s office approximately six times on each day. On both days, the Member sent a student to the office for misbehaving and did not provide the student with a note to go to the office. On both dates, the Principal asked the Member to speak with her regarding the student being sent down to the office and the misbehaviour, but the Member did not do so. Further, the Member was advised by the Principal that she must call the parent regarding the student’s behaviour issues and document the concerns, which the Member did not do.
On February 28, 2019, the Member called the office and/or Principal approximately five times throughout the day. Again, a student was sent to the office without a note for misbehaviour. The Member was reminded by the Principal that every time a student was sent to the office, it must be followed up with a written note to the office, a parent phone call advising the parent of the misbehaviour and the misbehaviour needed to be documented. The Member did not provide a note nor follow-up with the parent regarding the student’s misbehaviour.
The [XXX] Event
The [XXX] event was held on March 19, 2019. The [XXX] event was a school event where students were requested to bring a reusable water bottle to School.
Five students, including a female student (the “Student”), in the Member’s class did not bring a water bottle. The Member singled out the Student, even though there were multiple students who did not bring a water bottle.
When singling out the Student, the Member raised her voice to the Student and berated the Student. She continued to address the Student in a raised voice, despite the Student looking visibly upset.
April 1, 2019
The Member called the office and asked that someone attend to the class to assist in taking care of the Student. The Member wanted assistance to talk to the Student about throwing things in class.
The Principal went to the Member’s class to assist. The Principal heard the Member say to the Student, in a loud voice and in front of the class, “you are uncontrollable, you are dangerous and always getting into trouble,” or words to that effect. The Member, also in a loud voice, asked the Student to apologize to the class.
The Principal told the Member to stop using a loud voice when speaking to the Student. Further, the Member asked students in the class how they felt when the Student put glue on them. The Principal again asked the Member to stop. In response, the Member cut off the Principal and continued to speak loudly and in a manner that singled out the Student. The Member’s communication and interaction with the Student was aggressive, insensitive and demeaning.
The Peel Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) investigated the incidences of March 19, 2019 and April 1, 2019 and concluded that “the concern that the teacher’s inappropriate actions towards a student placed the student at risk of emotional harm has been verified.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the CAS letter dated June 21, 2019.
Board Directive to Attend Meeting and Board Discipline
The Member was required to attend an opportunity to respond meeting with the School administration and Board officials on May 1, 2019 regarding the March 19, 2019 and April 1, 2019 incidences with the Student. The Member did not attend the meeting.
The Board suspended the Member’s employment without pay for a period five days. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Principal’s log regarding incidents involving the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the discipline letter dated June 25, 2019.
Current Status
- The Member is not currently employed in any teaching capacity.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that 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 Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(10), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 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 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 otherwise 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 does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that he [sic] is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and the 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 parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 1, 2021 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(10), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 44 of 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. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct that included verbally and psychologically or emotionally abusing students; failing to maintain records as required; and failing to supervise students as required.
8The Member contravened subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 when she yelled in class. Her conduct was of such a degree that the Principal received a telephone call advising that a certain student did not want to go to school because the Member was angry and yelled in class. Despite having been advised by the Principal that yelling was not an appropriate classroom management strategy, the Member continued to engage in such inappropriate conduct. During the [XXX] event, the Member raised her voice to a particular Student. On a subsequent occasion, the Member again raised her voice to the Student and spoke to her in an aggressive, insensitive and demeaning way in front of the class. Teachers should never use aggressive, demeaning, and disparaging comments or tones towards students; these are not appropriate classroom management methods. The Member’s conduct in these instances amounts to verbal abuse.
9The Member’s conduct as described above constitutes psychological or emotional abuse, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. When the Member singled out and berated the Student earlier at the [XXX] event, she was acting unfairly and made the Student visibly upset. On a separate occasion, the Member’s communication with the Student was aggressive, insensitive and demeaning when she told the Student (in front of the class and the Principal), “you are uncontrollable, you are dangerous and always getting into trouble” or words to that effect. The Member’s conduct towards her students was such that students reported: not feeling like they could ask the Member for help, crying at night, and not wanting to go to school. The Member’s conduct disregarded and negatively impacted her students’ cognitive, emotional, psychological or social development, and therefore constitute psychological or emotional abuse.
10The Admitted Facts show the Member failed to keep records as required by her professional duties, and in contravention of subsection 1(10) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers are required to keep records in the course of fulfilling their professional duties including: teaching plans; records on student progress; notes on incidents of misbehaviour; logs of communication with parents; and records regarding their own attendance. These records help teachers to properly plan, care for, and evaluate their students. They are also important for the school administration, to ensure there is adequate supply coverage, to help supply teachers fulfil their roles, and to allow students and their parents to track students’ academic progress. The Member was provided with numerous reminders about the need to keep these records and was given many opportunities to prepare them. She was also provided with a template for tracking student behaviour. Nevertheless, the Member repeatedly failed to keep adequate records as was required of her.
11The Member contravened subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to properly supervise her students on several occasions. The Member was habitually late to work and did not notify the school, such that on at least two of these occasions, the students in her class were unsupervised for a period of time.
12The Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, which are set out in section 32 of the Bylaws of the Ontario College of Teachers. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate a commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment, and empathy in practice. Furthermore, the ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. Yelling at, belittling and treating students unfairly do not conform to these ethical standards. They demonstrate the Member’s lack of empathy and disregard for the dignity, wellness and development of her students. The Member’s conduct showed poor professional judgment and had a negative influence on her students, causing them to become upset and disinclined to attend school. Additionally, the Member’s repeated failure to fulfill many of her professional obligations, including proper record-keeping, preparing for and attending meetings, following up with parents, and being habitually late, despite numerous reminders and opportunities to change her conduct, showed a flagrant lack of respect to many members of the school community, including students, parents, school and board administration. These shortcomings also showed the Member’s failure to adhere to the ethical standard of “Integrity”, which requires members to act, among other things, reliably in fulfilling their professional commitments and responsibilities.
13The Member’s conduct as described above constitutes a failure to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act requires teachers to set a positive example for students by exemplifying virtues including justice, humanity and benevolence. Verbally abusing students and demeaning them does exemplify these virtues; they show a lack of control and poor role modelling. Further, such conduct does not encourage students in the pursuit of learning, as required by section 264(1)(b) of the Education Act. The Principal received two telephone calls indicating that two students did not want to go to school, one of whom said it was because the Member was angry and yelled in class. The Member’s yelling and poor classroom management, as well as her failure to keep her teaching plans and supply binders up to date show the Member failed to teach diligently and faithfully as required by section 264(1)(a) of the Education Act. The Member also failed to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of her school, as required by section 264(1)(d) of the Education Act, when she failed to adequately prepare, participate in, or attend meetings with her peers, Principal, and the Board; engaged in acts of insubordination against the Principal; failed to follow school protocols for parent-teacher interviews and dealing with misbehaving students; and failed to keep her teaching plans and supply binder up to date.
14The Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s repeated instances of abusive behaviour, failure to keep records, failure to supervise students, and failure to work with her peers, the Principal, and school administration, despite warnings and reminders about the inappropriateness or insufficiency of her conduct, demonstrated the Member’s complete and flagrant disregard for her professional obligations. The Member’s conduct was contrary to the professional training received by members and failed to demonstrate the good judgment and responsibility expected of a teacher. The Member admitted that her conduct can be properly characterized by all three terms and the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
15Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession are expected to be stewards of the public trust. When members repeatedly fail to fulfil any of their professional obligations, but especially when members endanger students by abusing them or leaving them unsupervised, it erodes the public’s trust in teachers and undermines the reputation of the teaching profession.
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 October 1, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand and the fact of the reprimand shall 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 six (6) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to resuming or commencing a position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, course(s) of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and boundaries in communication, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner(s) 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 and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner(s) will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course(s) which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner(s) shall also specify the length of the course(s) to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within thirty (30) days of her completion of the course(s) outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner(s):
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course(s) and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course(s).
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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Armstrong, 2019 ONOCT 48; Ontario College of Teachers v. Armstrong, 2019 ONOCT 49; Ontario College of Teachers v. Charette, 2018 ONOCT 32; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Baillou, 2021 ONOCT 17.
18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is that the Member was given numerous warnings and reminders about her repeated professional shortcomings but did not follow the directions of administration or make any significant improvements to her professional practice. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and the need to call witnesses, and she has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. The Panel also reviewed an email that was sent by the Member to the College during the hearing, which showed some insight into her conduct. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
19The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. As a role model in a position of trust and authority, members must ensure the safety and psychological or emotional wellbeing of their students. Members must also maintain positive and cooperative relationship with their colleagues, administration, and parents, and fulfill all of their professional obligations diligently and reliably. 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.
20Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a six-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 16, 2021, which is 15 calendar days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
21The Panel finds that the course or courses of instruction regarding classroom management and boundaries in communication will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, should she return to a teaching position. The Panel expects that the course provider(s) will assist the Member in developing insight and awareness into her misconduct. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will provide her with the tools to help her 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 principles of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 14, 2021
Emile Ramlochan Chair, Discipline Panel
Rebecca Forte, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Diane Freeman Member, Discipline Panel