DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Rémillard 2021 ONOCT 138

Date: 2021-11-18

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS

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

Patrick Rémillard, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

PATRICK RÉMILLARD (REGISTRATION #281528)

PANEL:Josée Landriault, OCT, Chair

Alain Martel, OCT

Marlène Marwah

HEARD: November 18, 2021

Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Jean-Michel Corbeil, for Patrick Rémillard

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.

On November 18, 2021, this matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the "Panel") of the Ontario College of Teachers (the "College"). Pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, the proceeding was held electronically.

Patrick Rémillard (the “Member”) was in attendance for 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

The 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

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 4, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Patrick Rémillard is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Actin that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

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

(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(e) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:

1. Patrick Rémillard is a member of the College. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “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 Conseil scolaire catholique Franco-Nord (the “Board”) as a teacher at École [XXX] (the “School”), in [XXX], Ontario.

3. At all material times, Student 1, a [XXX]-year-old boy, was in a [XXX]class taught by the Member.

4. On or about May 31, 2018, during a [XXX]class, the Member was refereeing a [XXX] game in which Student 1 was playing. Student 1 became frustrated with the Member’s actions. The Member told Student 1 to go to the locker room.

5. As Student 1 passed the Member on the way to the locker room, Student 1 said “Fuck you” to the Member. The Member replied, “What did you say?” and Student 1 repeated, “Fuck you.”

6. The Member followed Student 1 into the locker room, pushing the door open. He then came up to Student 1 while he was changing and yelled inappropriate remarks.

7. Students gathered at the locker room door and witnessed some of the exchange between the Member and Student 1. When the Member noticed them, he told them to go back to thegym.

8. The isolated situation created by the Member, his physical proximity to Student 1, the nature of his remarks to Student 1 and his furious mood created an intimidating atmosphere. The Member should not have approached Student 1 and confronted him as described above. Student 1 was affected by the incident. His version of the facts as told to Vice Principal Lisa Dumont minutes after the incident is attached as Appendix “B”.

9. The Board began an investigation into the May 31, 2018 incident. It found that the Member’s actions constituted bullying and that his conduct was a significant breach of his professional responsibilities. The Board also found that the Member’s behaviour “could easily in the circumstances have led to a physical altercation with the student.” On June 20, 2018, the Board suspended the Member for five days without pay and required him to take counseling sessions. The letter from the Board is attached as Appendix “C”. In response to a grievance filed by the Member’s bargaining agent, the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, the suspension was reduced to three days from five.

10. The Member completed the counseling sessions required by the Board.

11. Following the May 31, 2018 incident, the Board reported the matter to the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”), which conducted its own investigation. A copy of the letter from the CAS to the Board, dated September 6, 2018, is attached as Appendix “D”.

Previous Disciplinary Measures

12. On August 24, 2010, the Registrar initiated an investigation into allegations that on April 7, 2010, the Member slapped a Grade [XXX] student after being hit on the head by a ball during a [XXX] class. The Member admitted the misconduct. On December 14, 2011, the College’s Investigation Committee reviewed the case. It found that the allegations amounted to professional misconduct, and issued a written admonishment to the Member.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

13. By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts referred to above (the "Uncontested Facts").

14. 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 him, concerning breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Member further acknowledges that he failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Act.

15. By this document, the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against him;

(b) he understands that by signing this document, he consents to the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee, and agrees that the Committee can accept the facts as accurate for the purposes of this proceeding;

(c) he is pleading no contest to the findings by the College that the Uncontested Facts and allegations constitute professional misconduct as described in this document, and agrees that the Discipline Committee may make this finding without a hearing;

(d) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(e) he 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 his name, shall be published in Pour parler profession/Professionally Speaking, the official publication of the College;

(f) he understands that any agreement between the College and himself with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) he understands that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.

16. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Act, 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.

17. In light of the aforementioned Uncontested Facts and plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 18, 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DeCISION

The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.

The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted that the decision by the Divisional Court in Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 established that the College should generally present expert evidence on the standards of the profession and breaches thereof, unless the conduct is so notorious or obvious that expert evidence is not required. According to College Counsel, the Member’s conduct in response to a vulgar and offensive remark by Student 1 was “provoking and intimidating,” a clear failure by the Member to maintain the standards of the profession (Exhibit 2, Appendix C). One of a teacher’s basic responsibilities is to ensure student safety and wellbeing. The Member did the opposite. His threatening behaviour “could easily in the circumstances have led to a physical altercation with the student” (Exhibit 2, Appendix C). The Panel accepted the submissions of College Counsel and found that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. The Panel also took into account the fact that the Member pled no contest to failing to maintain the standards of the profession.

The Member abused Student 1 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). After being told “Fuck you” by Student 1, the Member became enraged and followed Student 1 into the locker room. The Member, who invaded Student 1’s personal space, yelled inappropriate remarks at him, including, “You’re not so tough now you’re on your own,” and “You’re fuckin’ ugly” or words to that effect (Exhibit 2, Appendix B). Bullying or threatening a student is an unacceptable, completely inappropriate disciplinary strategy that constitutes verbal abuse.

The Memberabused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Member was enraged and came up to Student 1 in the locker room, isolated him by invading his personal space and told the other students who were coming into the locker room to leave, thus creating an intimidating atmosphere. College Counsel referred to the Vice Principal’s statement that Student 1 was affected by the incident. In her report, the Vice Principal also noted that Student 1 came to talk to her immediately after the incident with the Member. Student 1 was upset. He told the Vice Principal that if he saw the Member, he would beat him up (Exhibit 2, Appendix B). The Panel accepted the submissions of College Counsel and found that the Member’s behaviour was threatening, which was not conducive to the student’s psychological or emotional wellbeing.

The Member failed to comply with the Education Act, subsection 264(1), contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). One requirement of this provision in the Act is that teachers act as a role model for students. The Member failed in this duty during the incident with Student 1 in the locker room. It is completely inappropriate for a teacher to react in that manner. The Member could not control his emotions, and thus was not an appropriate role model for Student 1 or the other students who witnessed the incident.

The Member 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). Teachers must control their emotions, no matter what the circumstances, to defuse any dispute. In the incident described above, the Member was unable to control himself, which is unacceptable. The Panel finds that in view of his teacher training and the caution he received previously from the College in 2011 for slapping a student, the Member ought to have de-escalated the situation. As the Board noted, his behaviour could easily have led to a physical altercation with a student (Exhibit 2, Appendix C). These actions cast doubt on his character and demonstrate poor professional judgment, contrary to the duties of the teaching profession.

Similarly, the Member’s conduct as described above is conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19), in that it damages the reputation of the teaching profession and undermines public trust.

F. PENALTY dEcision

The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on November 18, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register.

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of one month, as of the 15th calendar day following the decision and order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1.

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

(a) Within 180 days of the date of this Order, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management, 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 course goals;

(b) Within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined 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

The 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. Thompson, 2017 ONOCT 49, Ontario College of Teachers v. Chauvin, 2020 ONOCT 208 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gartshore, 2020 ONOCT 143.

The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are his physical and verbal bullying of a student. In addition, the Member had received an admonishment from the College’s Investigation Committee in 2011 for similar conduct, but failed to learn from his past mistakes. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his professional misconduct, 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.

The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand. Members of the profession must ensure at all times a safe school environment that supports student learning and wellbeing. To achieve this, members are expected to use established positive and professional teaching and classroom management strategies. 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.

Given the seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a one-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the prior cases presented are factually distinct in some ways from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and confirms that a suspension of the Member’s certificate is warranted. 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 on Penalty, the Member’s suspension will commence on December 3, 2021; that is, 15 days after the Panel’s decision and order.

The Panel considers that the course on anger management will assist in the Member’s rehabilitation. It will remind him of his obligations as a teacher and help him to make better decisions in his interactions with students.

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

November 18, 2021

Josée Landriault, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

Alain Martel, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Marlène Marwah

Member, Discipline Panel