DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Peltier 2021 ONOCT 122

Date: 2021-10-20

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

Jennifer Lynn Peltier, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JENNIFER LYNN PELTIER (REGISTRATION #449766)

PANEL: Josée Landriault, OCT, Chair William Goldbloom Hanno Weinberger, OCT

HEARD: October 20, 2021

Danielle Miller and Linette King, for the Ontario College of Teachers Kaley Duff, for Jennifer Lynn Peltier 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 20, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Jennifer Lynn Peltier (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 February 11, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Jennifer Lynn Peltier 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);¹

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

(f) 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);

(g) 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);

(h) 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);

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Jennifer Lynn Peltier is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the “Board”), and more specifically, from September 16, 2016 to April 5, 2017, was a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. The Member has been a teacher in good standing with the College since August 23, 2001. Prior to the allegations described below, she did not have any discipline history with the College.

4. During the 2016/2017 academic year, when the Member was a [XXX] teacher at the School, she engaged in inappropriate physical contact with students by playing a game in which the Member lay on the floor of the classroom and encouraged students to pile on top of her. While playing this game, the Member laughed and did not discourage students from hitting her bottom or each others.

5. The Member had challenges with classroom management which resulted in her frequently raising her voice at students.

6. During the 2016/2017 academic year, the Member made inappropriate comments to students, including:

(a) telling a crying student, whose mother had died, that he needed to “learn to grow up and not be a baby”;

(b) telling a student who was crying about the death of Jesus, “People die. You’re going to have to get used to that”;

(c) making references to her “booty” and describing girls as different from boys because they have “boobies”;

(d) describing things as “retarded” when speaking in the vicinity of students;

(e) discussing her farts with students;

(f) saying about a student, who was hitting others on the bum, that he could not help it because he was “Italian and it was in his genes”;

(g) telling students the colour of her underwear; and

(h) telling students that their work was “garbage” and looked like “daycare work”.

7. The Member embarrassed students in front of their classmates by calling out one student for touching his penis, telling him that it was “dirty” and that she was going to tell his mother, and drawing attention to another student for picking her nose so that the rest of the class looked and laughed at her. The Member also dealt with a student whose pants would slip down, by saying “crack up” in front of the class, causing the other students to laugh.

8. The Member also risked students’ safety in the following ways:

(a) permitting students to fight each other without intervening;

(b) leaving three students unattended in the classroom;

(c) permitting students to remove their coats while outside in cold weather; and

(d) bringing tools into the classroom, including a hammer and screwdriver, and allowing students to hammer nails into a piece of wood.

9. Student 1 was a [XXX] year old male student who was transferred into the Member’s class in March 2017.

10. On April 4, 2017, the Member mimicked Student 1 having a temper tantrum by speaking in a raised, angry tone and throwing objects around the classroom while saying “this is how you have a tantrum.” The Member engaged in this behaviour in front of the other students in the class.

11. On or about April 5, 2017, Student 1 would not cooperate with the Member’s request for him to go over to a table to practice some writing, as he was playing in another part of the classroom. As a result, the Member grabbed Student 1 by the wrist and when he fell to the ground, dragged him on the floor from one area of the classroom to another. She then put him on a chair, and pressed her knee into the back of the student’s seat to prevent him from getting up. The Member held Student 1 there until he began to do his writing activity.

12. As a result of this incident, the Member was charged criminally with assault, but following a trial, was found not guilty on the basis that s.43 of the Criminal Code of Canada permits teachers to use reasonable force by way of correction.

13. The Dufferin Child & Family Services (“DCAFS”) investigated the April 5, 2017 incident involving Student 1 and verified that the Member used excessive physical force. The DCAFS did not interview the Member before coming to its conclusion.

14. In March 2017, the Member received a tentative assignment to continue teaching [XXX] full time for the following 2017-2018 school year. However, as a result of the above incidents, on June 18, 2018, the Member received a Letter of Discipline from the Board. The Member was suspended for 5 days without pay and reassigned to a different elementary school effective June 19, 2018. This 5 day suspension is currently the subject of a grievance which has not yet been resolved. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s correspondence dated June 18, 2018.

15. During the 2016/2017 school year, the Member was experiencing significant [XXX]. She was originally transferred to [XXX] School as part of [XXX]

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

16. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

17. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).

18. 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading no contest 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 she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

19. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

20. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw subsection 1(5) was being sought because it would be duplicative in this case to proceed under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14), and the College is seeking a finding under subsection 1(14) only. The Panel granted the request.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 20, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 15 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.

9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member verbally abused a student contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member frequently raised her voice at her students and made several belittling and inappropriate comments. These included telling a student whose mother had died that he needed to “learn to grow up”, and telling students that their work was “garbage” and that it looked like “daycare work”. Speaking to students in such an insensitive and derogatory way is unprofessional, inappropriate, humiliating, and amounts to verbal abuse of students. Members of the profession must address all students with respect and sensitivity, which the Member failed to do in this case.

10The Panel finds that the Member physically abused a student contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member grabbed Student 1, dragged him on the floor to a table, and pinned his chair to the table using her knee. Even if the Member’s conduct was for the purpose of managing Student 1’s behaviour, it is not appropriate for members to grab and drag young students for that purpose. In this case, Student 1 should have been redirected and otherwise managed without physical contact and, as such, the Member’s actions constitute physical abuse of a student.

11The Panel finds that the Member emotionally abused students contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member made comments that constitute emotional abuse as they could reasonably interfere with students’ cognitive, emotional, psychological or social development. The Member embarrassed students in front of their classmates and she drew attention to students’ innocent or accidental behaviour, causing the rest of the class to laugh at those students. The Member could have ignored the students’ behaviour but instead she intentionally publicly shamed her young students. This was emotionally and psychologically abusive. Additionally, the Member told a student whose mother had just died that he needed to get over it. This unsympathetic and thoughtless behaviour from the Member amounted to emotional abuse of that student. Teachers hold a position of trust and authority in the classroom and are expected to conduct themselves in a way that fosters the well-being of students. This is especially true for very young [XXX] students. The Member did not meet this expectation by making insensitive and embarrassing comments to her students.

12The Panel finds that the Member failed to adequately supervise students, who were under her professional supervision, contrary to subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member left three students unsupervised in the classroom and allowed students to fight each other without intervening. As such, the Member put her students in danger and did not adequately supervise them contrary to her professional obligation to do so. Members of the teaching profession are responsible for the safety of students under their supervision and must always provide age-appropriate supervision. In this case, the students were [XXX] years old and required constant supervision, which the Member failed to provide.

13The Member failed to comply with the College’s by-laws, contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by breaching the standards articulated in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession set out at section 32.02 of the by-laws. Teachers are expected to uphold the Ethical Standards by showing compassion, acceptance, and a commitment to students’ well-being (“Care”) and by honouring their students’ human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development (“Respect”). By calling her students names, yelling at students, using derogatory and inappropriate words in the presence of students, leaving her students unsupervised, and by mocking and physically abusing Student 1, the Member showed a lack of care and respect for her students. As such, her actions were contrary to the Ethical Standards.

14The Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. This provision requires that teachers encourage students in the pursuit of learning and that they act as positive role models. The Member discouraged her students by ridiculing their work instead of fostering their creativity. Additionally, the Member modelled inappropriate behaviour to her students by making inappropriate comments and using offensive language in the presence of her students, by crudely imitating a student’s temper tantrum, by allowing students to fight, and by using physical force against Student 1. The Member’s inappropriate comments to her students were discouraging and modeled unacceptable ways to communicate with others, particularly as these young students were learning formative social skills.

15The Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel finds that the Member’s physical abuse of Student 1, her embarrassment of students, as well as her yelling at students were entirely disgraceful and dishonourable and have no place in the classroom. The Member’s behaviour showed a lack of understanding of what is age-appropriate behaviour and she ought to have known that her behaviour was unprofessional and would have a negative impact on her [XXX] students.

16Additionally, the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s conduct undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust that members of the public place in teachers.

F. PENALTY Decision

17The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 20, 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 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 suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of five (5) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;

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

(a) prior to returning to teaching, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management with an emphasis on appropriate discipline and boundaries, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within thirty (30) days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

18The 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. Lyons, 2021 ONOCT 83, Ontario College of Teachers v. Corlett, 2020 ONOCT 214, Ontario College of Teachers v. MacAdam, 2019 ONOCT 3, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20.

19The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the many instances of misconduct committed during the 2016/2017 school year and the very young age of the students who were the victims of the Member’s abuse. In terms of mitigating factors, even though the matter settled shortly before a scheduled contested hearing, the Member ultimately did not contest the misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Additionally, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in her 16-year teaching career, and she was experiencing significant [XXX] at the time of the misconduct. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

20The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to have compassion for their students and not to single them out, embarrass them, and verbally or physically abuse them. 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.

21Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a five-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 between two and six months is justified in this case. 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. Similarly, the suspension sends a message to the public that the Panel views this kind of misconduct seriously, which helps to ensure public confidence in the teaching profession. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on November 4, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

22The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management with an emphasis on appropriate discipline and boundaries will 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 when she teaches in the future.

23The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: October 20, 2021

Josée Landriault, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

William Goldbloom Member, Discipline Panel

Hanno Weinberger, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.