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
Diana Mildred Reid, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
DIANA MILDRED REID (REGISTRATION #422819)
PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Emile Ramlochan Linda Staudt, OCT
HEARD: October 29, 2021
Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Michele Hamilton, for Diana Mildred Reid Rebecca Durcan, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on October 29, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Diana Mildred Reid (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 15, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Diana Mildred Reid 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 failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/07, subsection 1(14);
(c) 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);
(d) she committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario 437/97, subsection 1(18);
(e) 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:
Diana Mildred Reid 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a vice-principal at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Mississauga, Ontario.
Inappropriate Comments:
In March of 2016, the staff at the School were getting ready to administer the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (the “OSSLT”). When the staff were preparing for the test, the Member stated the following in the presence of a few colleagues, to stress the importance of the OSSLT: “there are two ways of getting into the blue pages, to fuck a student or to fuck up on the OSSLT”.
During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member referred to students as “little shits” and “little fuckers” in the presence of colleagues.
When referring to a Long-Term Occasional teacher, the Member stated in the presence of colleagues that this teacher would: “roll around in pig shit and walk down Hurontario Street naked” if the Member asked her to do so.
The Member would sometimes address teachers with a tone they perceived as being aggressive. On occasion the Member stated “I’m the V.P” in a manner that connoted superiority. On one occasion when the Member attempted to order Sharpies from an office assistant and was questioned on the purchase requisition, she was frustrated and stated “I’m the Vice-Principal. I should get my fucking sharpies”.
The Member made disparaging comments about teaching assistants at the school in the presence of her colleagues. On one occasion, the Member referred to teaching assistants as “whiners”.
The Member acknowledges that these comments were inappropriate.
Inappropriate Interactions with Colleagues:
The Member is a loud and animated talker.
During the 2015-2016 academic year while meeting with a group of colleagues, the Member slammed her hands on a table in a manner to stop a conversation and stated “It’s done. It’s over”. The Member would use her hands in an angry manner to bang, rap or otherwise accentuate her statements to colleagues.
On one occasion when she was frustrated, the Member drummed and banged her fingers on the desk of a colleague and stated in an aggressive manner, “I’m the V.P. She is a fucking secretary. Understand? A fucking secretary”.
The Member would sometimes lean over colleagues and come into their personal space while they were working.
On another occasion, a colleague was in the doorway of the Member’s office. The Member put her hands up to stop this colleague from talking and then continued to walk towards her, causing this colleague to back up, as the Member continued walking towards her. The Member bumped into the colleague with her chest.
Imitating Colleagues:
- In or about the academic year 2015-2016, the Member imitated perceived or actual disabilities of one or more colleagues.
Inappropriate Gestures:
- During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member would roll her eyes to express frustration with colleagues. Sometimes, the Member would roll her eyes behind the backs of colleagues in view of other staff at the School. On one occasion, the Member contorted her face into a “silent scream” gesture when interacting with a colleague. The Member held up her middle finger behind the backs of a group of her colleagues. This had a negative impact on the staff at the School, who questioned whether the Member had made comments or gestures in private about them.
Impact on School Environment:
The Member created an unprofessional work atmosphere by sharing her negative views widely, whether verbally or through gestures.
On May 13, 2016, the Member was assigned to home with full pay and benefits. The Member was instructed not to contact staff members, parents, or students within the school community, and was not permitted on Board property without express permission from the Superintendent of Education. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated May 13, 2016.
The Member resigned from her position with the Board as of December 31, 2017.
The Member is currently employed as a Principal at a private school in Hamilton, Ontario.
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(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 she 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
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation under subsection 1(5) was being sought as proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. The Panel granted the request.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 29, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 19 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, in her role as vice-principal, engaged in inappropriate communication and conduct in her interactions with her colleagues.
9The Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Member failed to comply with the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession and the Ethical Standards of the Teaching Profession set out in sections 32.01 and 32.02 of the by-laws, respectively. Members, especially those in leadership and administrative positions such as vice-principals, like the Member during the material time, are required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative and supportive learning communities in accordance with the practice standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities”. The Member’s disrespectful and aggressive communications, inappropriate expressions of frustration toward, and offensive imitations of her colleagues, as well as her disparaging characterization of students as “little shits” or “little fuckers”, or other use of profanity, did not create a collaborative and supportive environment for staff at the school. Further, these actions contravened the ethical standards of “Care” as they did not demonstrate positive influence or professional judgment; “Respect” as they did not honour the dignity and wellness of school staff; “Integrity” as they did not demonstrate the moral action required by members of the teaching profession; and “Trust”, which requires fairness and underlies members’ professional relationships with others, including colleagues. The Member’s inappropriate and offensive comments and gestures, including comments connoting superiority and imitations of perceived or actual disabilities of colleagues, did not demonstrate fairness. The Member’s misconduct created a negative work environment, characterized by distrust, wherein her colleagues questioned whether the Member had made comments or gestures in private about them.
10The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario 437/97. Section 264(1) of the Education Act sets out the duties of teachers, including, the duty to set a good example by upholding various moral virtues in accordance with subsection 264(1)(c). Members must set a good example for others by, at the very least, behaving respectfully. In addition, subsection 264(1)(d) of the Education Act requires members to assist in developing co-operation and coordination of efforts with school staff. The Member failed to fulfill these duties by her repeated unprofessional and disrespectful conduct. Her disparaging remarks about her colleagues, and the inappropriate gestures, language, and tone used to express her frustrations towards them set a poor example for her staff. Moreover, the Member’s misconduct created an unprofessional work atmosphere that negatively impacted the staff at school. She did not foster a collaborative work environment as was expected of a vice-principal and a leader in her school community.
11The Member’s misconduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The terms disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional are not interchangeable and the Panel finds the Member’s misconduct is rightfully characterized by all three terms. The Member acted unprofessionally by repeatedly failing to show good judgment and regard for her professional obligations in her interactions with staff. She acted dishonourably by showing considerable moral failing, and she behaved disgracefully by imitating perceived or actual disabilities of one or more colleagues, which was particularly abhorrent conduct.
12The Member’s misconduct as described above was also unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members, especially those in leadership positions like principals and vice-principals, must have the maturity and ability to exercise good judgment, self-control, and professionalism in a school setting. The Member’s repeated expressions of aggression and negativity, and inability to express frustration or to communicate in constructive ways, reflects poorly on the Member and the profession as a whole and is a reflection of the abuse of her position of authority, creating an unprofessional work atmosphere. The reputation of the teaching profession is undermined when members, especially administrators, are unable to fulfil their duties with professionalism and to maintain professional working relationships.
F. PENALTY DECISION
13The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 29, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
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 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 two (2) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1st and August 1st, the suspension will commence on September 1st;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) within ninety (90)2 [sic] of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics, 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 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
14The 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. Fair, 2016 ONOCT 21, Ontario College of Teachers v. Fair, 2016 ONOCT 79, Ontario College of Teachers v. Vandenberg, 2018 ONOCT 15, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Shackleton, 2020 ONOCT 122.
15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that she was a vice-principal who was expected to be a school leader and role model. She showed repeated lapses in her professional judgment during various interactions with staff. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member’s conduct, while repeated, was limited to the 2015-2016 school year. The Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. The Member admitted her misconduct and willingly entered into a resolution with the College, thereby sparing witnesses from having to testify, and saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
16The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. The Member displayed a wide range of aggressive, disrespectful, and insensitive behaviour and remarks towards her staff and colleagues that tarnished their work environment. 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.
17Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, 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. While the Member is not currently employed in the public school system, a suspension will impress on her the inappropriateness and seriousness of her misconduct. The notation of the reprimand on the Register will also serve as 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 November 13, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a member of the teaching profession, provide her with strategies for how to develop and maintain professional working relationships, and help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with her colleagues, especially as a person in a leadership position who holds influence within the school community.
19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: November 3, 2021
Hanno Weinberger, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Emile Ramlochan Member, Discipline Panel
Linda Staudt, OCT Member, Discipline Panel