DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION
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
Christopher Michael Spence, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SPENCE (REGISTRATION #184667)
PANEL: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair
Diane Ballantyne, OCT
Jonathan Rose
HEARD: October 2-3, 2019, June 28, 2021
Caroline Zayid, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Christopher Michael Spence, self-represented (present on October 2 and 3, 2019)
Julie Maciura, 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 before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on October 2 and 3, 2019, and June 28, 2021 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). On June 28, 2021, the hearing was heard electronically in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Christopher Michael Spence (the “Member”) attended the hearing on October 2 and 3, 2019 and did not have legal representation. On October 3, 2019, the Member requested an adjournment of the hearing to adduce further evidence. The Panel granted this request, and the hearing was adjourned to March 23, 2020.
3On March 17, 2020, the Tribunals Office of the College postponed all in-person hearings, including the present matter, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
4This matter was then rescheduled to two additional dates, which were adjourned by the Member’s request (Ontario College of Teachers v. Spence, 2021 ONOCT 26). The matter was again rescheduled to two dates in June of 2021, which the Member sought to adjourn indefinitely. The Panel denied the Member’s request and the matter proceeded on June 28, 2021 (Ontario College of Teachers v. Spence, 2021 ONOCT 65). The Member did not attend the hearing on June 28, 2021.
5On June 28, 2021, after hearing College Counsel’s closing submissions, the Panel reserved its decision on finding. On August 16, 2021, the Panel issued a Decision and Order, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(12), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). These are the Panel’s reason for that decision.
A. publication ban
6The 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
7The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated April 8, 2015 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Christopher Michael Spence is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(c) 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);
(d) 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); and
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS
Christopher Michael Spence is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as the Director of Education.
Between the approximate dates of May 2010 to January 2013, the Member wrote articles and/or opinion pieces for the Toronto Star newspaper which contained plagiarized material.
On or about September 1, 2010 and in or around March 2012, the Member delivered speeches which contained plagiarized material.
Between the approximate dates of September 2010 to October 2011, the Member posted blog entries which contained plagiarized material.
In or around 2002, 2008 and 2009, the Member authored books which contained plagiarized material.
The Member resigned his employment with the Board on or about January 10, 2013.
C. THE MEMBER’S PLEA
8At the outset of the hearing, the Member took responsibility for the allegations of professional misconduct. The Panel conducted a plea inquiry and the Member pled guilty to the professional misconduct allegations in the Notice of Hearing. Additionally, the Member submitted that the College’s anticipated evidence presents an unfair narrative about him, and he wanted the opportunity to be heard in order to balance out this narrative. In response, College Counsel submitted that the Panel should accept the Member’s plea but that in the absence of an Agreed Statement of Facts the Panel should proceed to hear the evidence and to not make a finding of professional misconduct until the evidence has been heard and the Panel is satisfied that the evidence can support findings of professional misconduct as alleged. Independent Legal Counsel’s advice to the Panel was consistent with this submission. Following this advice, the Panel acceded to this submission and proceeded to hear the evidence before making its finding.
D. THE EVIDENCE
9The Panel heard from three witnesses in total – two on behalf of the College, and the Member testified on his own behalf. The Panel notes that the Member did not complete his cross-examination and so it must approach the Member’s evidence with some caution. The Member was in the middle of being cross-examined by College Counsel when the Member requested an adjournment in order to obtain further evidence on his behalf but the Member did not participate in the hearing again when it ultimately resumed.
(1) The College
(a) Adelia Da Silva
10Ms. Da Silva is an investigator with the College. Her role is to follow up on complaints about members, to gather information related to those complaints, and to present it to the Investigations Committee for a decision about whether the matter will be referred to the Discipline Committee. Ms. Da Silva testified that she received a complaint that the Member plagiarized some material that he wrote and published while he was a member of the College. Through Ms. Da Silva, the College entered the following documents into evidence, which were accessed and reviewed by Ms. Da Silva in the course of her investigation:
Spence, Chris, “Without school sports, everyone loses”, op-ed published on January 5, 2013 in the Toronto Star (Exhibit 4, Tab 1);
Spence, Chris, “Full service schools offer more than just education”, op-ed published on May 5, 2010 in the Toronto Star (Exhibit 4, Tab 2);
Spence, Chris, “Learning Locally, Contributing Globally”, Toronto District School Board blog post, published on September 28, 2010 (Exhibit 4, Tab 3);
Spence, Chris, “Chris’ Blog”, Toronto District School Board blog post, published on June 27, 2011 (Exhibit 4, Tab 4);
Spence, Chris, “Chris’ Blog”, published on October 17, 2011, screenshot of landing page, Toronto District School Board blog post (Exhibit 4, Tab 5);
Spence, Chris, “On Time! On Task! On a Mission!”, Fernwood Publishing, Black Point, Nova Scotia, 2002 (Exhibit 4, Tab 6);
Spence, Chris, “The Joys of Teaching Boys”, Pembrooke Publishers, Markham, Ontario, 2008 (Exhibit 4, Tab 8);
Spence, Chris, “Leading with Passion and Purpose”, Pembrooke Publishers, Markham, Ontario, 2009 (Exhibit 4, Tab 9);
Spence, Chris, “Connecting with Education: Chris Spence at TEDx Stouffville”, published on YouTube April 29, 2012 (Exhibit 13);
Spence, Chris, “Toronto Schools can help stop violence by catching kids early”, op-ed published July 23, 2012 in the Toronto Star (Exhibit 4, Tab 13); and
Spence, Chris, “’Heavy with hurt’ in Toronto Schools”, published December 16, 2012 in the Toronto Star (Exhibit 4, Tab 14).
As part of her investigation of this complaint, Ms. Da Silva set out to find the source material to confirm whether any content in these works by the Member was plagiarized. While she did not check every line in the Member’s work, she was able to locate the following materials when checking for instances of plagiarism:
Pro Sports Chick, Sports Important In Fostering Children’s Growth, Social Skills, published on May 3, 2012 (Exhibit 4, Tab 1A);
Tenhouse, Amy M., College Student Life, Encyclopedia.com, 2003 (Exhibit 4, Tab 1B);
Defranz, Lanita L., “An Open Letter to President Bush”, The New York Times, published on February 19,1989 (Exhibit 4, Tab 1C);
George, Bill and Sims, Peter, True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership, published by John Wiley & Sons Inc., p 9 (Exhibit 4, Tab 1D);
Graddock, Alison, What Being an Athlete in Team Sports Taught Me about Leadership, Institute for Professional Excellence in Coaching, Coaching Blog, accessed in 2016 (Exhibit 4, Tab 1E);
Riley, Richard W., Smith, Marshall S., Peterson, Terry K., and Ginsburg, Alan L., “Keeping Schools Open as Community Learning Centers: Extending Learning in a Safe, Drug-Free Environment Before and After School”, Partnership for Family Involvement in Education, 1997, Washington, D.C. (Exhibit 4, Tab 2A);
Arrington, Rebecca P., “Professor James A. Banks Encourages Educating Students to be Global Citizens in the Annual Ridley Lecture at the University of Virginia”, UVA Today, published on April 4, 2008 (Exhibit 4, Tab 3A);
Garza, Antonio, “Commencement address – University of Austin”, May 20, 2006 (Exhibit 4, Tab 4A);
McGuire, Patricia, “Remarks for the 2008 Senior Luncheon – President Patricia McGuire”, Trinity Washington University, May 2008 (Exhibit 4, Tab 4B);
McAlpine, Scott, “Welcoming international students is good for Douglas, good for local students”, Douglas President’s blog, October 11, 2011 (Exhibit 4, Tab 5A);
Geib, Richard, “Biography”, Los Angeles Unified School District: Inner-City School Teacher Blues, blog, accessed July 22, 2016 (Exhibit 4, Tab 6A);
Inger, Morton, “Teacher Collaboration in Urban Secondary Schools”, ERIC/CUE Digest Number 93, 1993, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, New York (Exhibit 4, Tab 7A);
Blair, Heather A. and Sanford, Kathy, “Morphing Literacy: Boys Reshaping Their School-Based Literacy Practices”, Language Arts, Vol 81 No. 6, July 2004 (Exhibit 4, Tab 8A);
Walsh, Diana Chapman, “Trustworthy Leadership”, Fetzer Institute, Spring 2006 (Exhibit 4, Tab 9A);
Du Plessis, Pierre, Conley, Lloyd, and Hlongwane, Solly, “Changing Landscape for Principalship – New Challenges for Tomorrow’s Leaders”, University of Johannesburg, 2007 (Exhibit 4, Tab 10A);
Mizell, M. Hayes, “Shooting for the Sun, the Message of Middle School Reform”, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 2002 (Exhibit 4, Tab 11A);
Ferrandino, Vincena and Tirozzi, Gerald, “Principal’s Perspective, Wanted: A Comprehensive Literacy Agenda Pre K – 12”, Education Week, May 2004 (Exhibit 4, Tab 12A);
New Haven Board of Education, “Comprehensive, Integrated Community-Wide Safe Schools/Healthy Students Plan for New Haven, Connecticut”, U.S. Department of Education , Health and Human Service, and Justice, June 1, 1999 (Exhibit 4, Tab 13A);
Arca, Melissa, “Advice on what to tell your children about the Connecticut shooting tragedy”, Sacramento Bee published on December 15, 2012 (Exhibit 4, Tab 14A); and
Sultan, Aisha, “What to say to kids about Connecticut school shotting”, stltoday.com, published on December 14, 2012 (Exhibit 4, Tab 14B).
11After reviewing the resources listed above and comparing them with the pieces published and attributed to the Member, Ms. Da Silva concluded that the Member included in his work, and published, plagiarized material.
(b) Ryan Bird
12At the time of the hearing, Ryan Bird worked in the role of Manager of Corporate and Social Media Relations at the Board. In 2012-2013, Mr. Bird worked as a Communication Officer with the Board. Mr. Bird had frequent contact with the Member’s office responding to media requests and assisting in releasing communications materials. Additionally, Mr. Bird submitted to the Toronto Star opinion pieces written by the Member.
13Mr. Bird’s testimony focussed on three opinion pieces published in the Toronto Star and attributed to the Member:
Spence, Chris, “Toronto Schools can help stop violence by catching kids early”, op-ed published July 23, 2012 in the Toronto Star (Exhibit 4, Tab 13);
Spence, Chris, “’Heavy with hurt’ in Toronto Schools”, published December 16, 2012 in the Toronto Star (Exhibit 4, Tab 14); and
Spence, Chris, “Without school sports, everyone loses”, published January 5, 2013 in the Toronto Star (Exhibit 4, Tab 1).
14Mr. Bird testified to the process of drafting and editing these op-eds. First, the Member sent either Mr. Bird or his colleague, the Head of Communications, a draft of the proposed piece, which Mr. Bird edited. Sometimes Mr. Bird added or removed certain elements from the draft. While he may have fact-checked the Member’s drafts for TDSB-related information, there was no further fact-checking done and he did not review the drafts for any possibility of plagiarism. After Mr. Bird’s edit, there was often additional back and forth about small edits between Mr. Bird and the Member. Once the process was complete, Mr. Bird sought the Member’s approval of the final draft. If approval was received, he sent the piece to the Toronto Star. Mr. Bird testified that the Member drafted the op-eds on his own initiative, without being asked to do so.
15Mr. Bird testified that, on January 8, 2013, he received communication from the public editor of the Toronto Star notifying him that the Toronto Star had received a note from a reader about unattributed passages in one of the op-eds. Mr. Bird confirmed that, while he edited the pieces prior to submitting them to the Toronto Star, to his knowledge they were authored by the Member.
16In cross-examination by the Member, Mr. Bird testified that he was aware that the Member may have used external communications counsel to help on certain initiatives and projects, but that he was not aware of the details of who was hired for which projects. To Mr. Bird’s knowledge, external communications counsel was not involved in drafting the three op-eds that were the subject of his evidence.
(2) The Member
17The Member testified with the intention of providing additional context to the evidence presented by the College. He testified that his role as Director was an extremely busy one. And his schedule was made even more hectic by some downsizing that occurred at the Board, as well as the retirement of one associate director who was not replaced. The Member’s busy schedule did not leave him with a lot of time to prepare for some of his presentations, and so he received assistance in preparing his materials. The Member provided a letter from his former administrative assistant, Ms. Mary Grosvenor, stating that he employed external professionals to assist him with his writings and presentations. In addition to being very busy, the Member testified that, while it was not mandatory, there was a lot of pressure on him to be “out there”, speaking, writing, and creating a profile to enhance the image of the Board. The Member further testified that after the plagiarism came to light, he received communication from the Board chair and trustees that, following his resignation, further discipline against him would not be initiated.
18The Member testified regarding the work that he has done as an educator in Ontario. As part of his evidence, he played clips of films and documentaries that he wrote and produced through his company – CMS Productions – that were aimed at “providing educational resources that reflected the needs and utilized the talents of visible minorities.” The Member also provided what can be considered character evidence – letters from colleagues and students that thank him for his work and speak about his good work as an educator, evidence of awards that he has won, evidence of the success of the students at the schools that the Member oversaw while he was superintendent, and examples of programming that he supported, initiated, and implemented during his long career in education.
19In cross-examination, the Member admitted that all the works submitted into evidence by the College and attributed to him contained plagiarized materials. He also admitted that, while he was under the impression that his resignation would end all investigations and disciplinary proceedings against him, the Board had a legal obligation to notify the College of his resignation and the reason for it. The College did not have an opportunity to complete its cross-examination of the Member, who sought and was granted an adjournment of the hearing in the middle of his cross-examination and who did not continue to participate in the hearing when it ultimately resumed.
E. SUBMISSIONs OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
20College Counsel reviewed the relevant evidence with the Panel and submitted that the documents submitted through Ms. Da Silva’s testimony clearly prove the allegations of professional misconduct on a balance of probabilities. College Counsel further submitted that their witnesses were credible and their evidence could be relied on to make a finding of professional misconduct. Regarding the Member’s evidence, College Counsel submitted that there was ambiguity as to what the Member meant when he said he was taking responsibility. According to College Counsel, the Member only took responsibility when he had no choice but to do so, because his dishonest behaviour was uncovered. Furthermore, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s evidence about having received external help and his suggestion that those who assisted him may have supplied the plagiarized material is unreliable, not credible, and does not fit with the rest of the evidence before the Panel.
21Finally, College Counsel submitted that, by engaging in plagiarism, the conduct of the Member was so notorious that it clearly failed to meet the standards of the profession contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsection 1(5). As such, the College was not required to provide expert evidence regarding the professional standards, pursuant to Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 (“Novick”).
F. SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER
22As the Member was not present on the final day of the hearing, he did not make submissions regarding the evidence heard during his hearing.
G. DECISION ON FINDING
23The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, which is proof on a balance of probabilities. In making its finding, the Panel has also taken into consideration the Member’s guilty plea at the outset of the hearing.
24Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, the Member’s guilty plea and the submissions of the College, the Panel rendered a Decision and Order on August 16, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(12), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). The Panel ordered that the matter be scheduled for submissions on penalty, to be heard on December 2, 2021.
H. REASONS FOR DECISION
25The Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this hearing. In the reasons that follow, the Panel comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel first sets out its factual findings and then explains why these facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.
26As stated above, the College has the burden of proving the allegations. This means that first, the College must prove that the behaviour alleged in the Notice of Hearing occurred on a standard of the balance of probabilities – or that it is more likely than not that the Member acted as alleged. Second, the College has the burden of proving that any such behaviour constitutes professional misconduct.
27In evaluating the evidence before it, the Panel recognizes that it can accept all, some, or none of any witness’ evidence. When deciding how much of each witness’ testimony to accept, the Panel has considered the following credibility factors: the witness’ ability to observe and recall the events; whether the witness has an interest in the outcome of the hearing that may cloud their recollection; the plausibility or reasonability of the evidence; and the internal and external consistency (or inconsistency) of the evidence. The Panel can also determine credibility based on logic, common sense, and its experience. The Panel also notes that the Member did not complete his cross-examination.
(1) Credibility Assessments
28The Panel finds that Mr. Bird was a credible witness. He seemed to have a good memory of the events relating to the 2012-2013 opinion pieces that he edited, and his memory of the events was consistent with the contemporaneous email communications that were submitted into evidence. Mr. Bird had no interest in the outcome of the hearing, his evidence was clear and consistent and overall, the Panel finds his evidence plausible and reliable.
29It is unnecessary to analyze the credibility of Ms. Da Silva – her testimony served the purpose of putting certain documents before the Panel and authenticating the source of these documents. While the Panel did hear evidence from Ms. Da Silva that she concluded that the Member had likely engaged in plagiarism, the Panel has not put any weight on this element of Ms. Da Silva’s testimony. The issue of whether the Member created articles, blog posts, books, and speeches that contained plagiarized material is one to be determined by this Panel and it has not relied on Ms. Da Silva’s conclusion in making its decision.
30The Panel has assessed the credibility of the Member in light of his guilty plea, in which he took responsibility for engaging in professional misconduct as alleged. While the Member did not claim that he had a defence for committing professional misconduct, he sought to provide additional context through his evidence (although he then failed to return to complete his cross-examination).
31The Panel finds that the Member’s evidence regarding the writing assistance that he received was not very helpful in providing more context on the issue of his plagiarism for two reasons. First, the Member’s evidence about receiving assistance was not persuasive. While the Member was generally able to recall the events testified to, his evidence about the assistance that he received was lacking in detail. He did not remember the names of those who assisted him, he could not remember the process for engaging the services of writing support, he was not sure of exactly which pieces he had help with, he could not remember if any of the pieces were written entirely without assistance, and he was not clear about the role of the consulting services that he used to assist him with his writing. Additionally, despite requesting an adjournment so that he could call other evidence to support his argument that he received drafting help, the Member did not complete his cross-examination or participate in the continuation of his hearing and so the Panel did not have testimony from anyone else about the help that the Member received, nor was the College able to cross examine anyone other than the Member (in part) about this argument.
32Second, even if the evidence that there was a process in place to support the Member to produce blogs, op-ed pieces, and presentation is taken at its highest, this evidence does not go so far as to prove that the Member unknowingly included plagiarized materials in his work. The Member acknowledged that he was busy and that he received writing assistance only. The Panel did not hear evidence that any of the plagiarized works were written without the Member’s input or without his final approval. All the material that is the subject of this hearing was credited to the Member alone, there was evidence that the Member personally signed off on the Toronto Star op-eds by email, and the Member ultimately took ownership of all that work that was attributed to him.
(2) Factual Findings
(a) Between May 2010 and January 2013, the Member wrote articles and/or opinion pieces for the Toronto Star newspaper which contained plagiarized material
33The Panel finds that the College has proven on a balance of probabilities that, between May 2010 and January 2013, the Member wrote articles and opinion pieces for the Toronto Star that contained plagiarized material. This evidence can be found in the documents located and accessed by Ms. Da Silva. These documents show that there were sentences, and sometimes entire paragraphs, in the documents written by the Member (or submitted to the Toronto Star as having been written by the Member) that appeared in other, previously published works. Some examples of this include:
The opinion piece titled “Toronto Schools can help stop violence by catching kids early”, published on July 23, 2021 (Exhibit 4, Tab 13) includes sentences that are virtually identical to a document created by the New Haven Board of Education titled “Comprehensive, Integrated Community-Wide Safe Schools/Healthy Students Plan for New Haven, Connecticut” (Exhibit 4, Tab 13A);
The opinion piece titled “’Heavy with hurt’ in Toronto Schools”, published in the Toronto Star on December 16, 2012 (Exhibit 4, Tab 14) includes sentences that are virtually identical to articles that were published elsewhere days earlier: “What to say to kids about Connecticut school shooting”, published in the St. Louis post Dispatch on December 14, 2012 (Exhibit 4, Tab 14B) and “Advice on what to tell your children about the Connecticut shooting tragedy”, published in the Sacramento Bee on December 15, 2012 (Exhibit 4, Tab 14A); and
The opinion piece titled “Without school sports, everyone loses”, published in the Toronto Star on January 5, 2013 (Exhibit 4, Tab 14A) includes sentences that are virtually identical to “An Open Letter to President Bush”, an editorial published in the New York Times on February 19, 1989.
(b) In or around March 2012, the Member delivered speeches which contained plagiarized material
34The College has proven that in March 2012, the Member delivered a speech that contained plagiarized material. The evidence of the College shows that the Member gave a speech at TEDx Stouffville in March of 2012, which included a sentence that was identical to a piece titled “Wanted: A Comprehensive Literacy Agenda Pre-K – 12” by Vincent Ferrandino and Gerald Tirozzi, published in Education Week in May 2004 (Exhibit 4, Tab 12A). The Member did not attribute any portion of his speech to this publication.
35Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing alleges that the Member also delivered a speech containing plagiarized material on or about September 1, 2010. However, the Panel heard no evidence of plagiarized material in relation to a speech given on that date, and the College has therefore not proven that portion of the allegation. The Panel’s finding in relation to plagiarize material contained in speeches is limited to the March 2012 TEDx Stouffville speech.
(c) Between September 2010 and October 2011, the Member posted blog entries which contained plagiarized materials
36The College has proven that between September 2010 and October 2011, the Member posted blog entries on a blog available to Toronto District School Board staff that contained plagiarized material. The College, through documents located and accessed by Ms. Da Silva and through the evidence of Mr. Bird, has proven that the Board posted to a blog referred to as “Chris’ Blog”, items written by or attributed to the Member. Mr. Bird testified that there was a member of the Board’s communication staff who posted content online and who looked after the technical side of social media. To Mr. Bird’s knowledge, the blog entries were authored by the Member. The documents show that there were sentences, and sometimes entire paragraphs, in the blog posts written by the Member that appeared in other, previously published works. Some examples of this include:
The entry on Chris’ Blog posted on September 28, 2010 (Exhibit 4, Tab 3) contains paragraphs that are virtually identical to paragraphs in a piece in UVA today by Rebecca P. Arrington, entitled “Professor James A. Banks Encourages Educating Students to be Global Citizens in the Annual Ridley Lecture at the University of Virginia” (Exhibit 4, Tab 3A); and
The entry on Chris’ Blog posted on June 27, 2011 (Exhibit 4, Tab 4) contains sentences that are virtually identical to some sentences in the University of Austin commencement address made by Antonio Garza on May 20, 2006 (Exhibit 4, Tab 4A) and to Remarks for the 2008 Senior Luncheon made by Patricia McGuire in May 2008 (Exhibit 4, Tab 4B).
(d) In or around 2002, 2008 and 2009, the Member authored books which contained plagiarized material
37Finally, the College has proven that in 2002, 2008, and 2009, the Member authored books that contained plagiarized material. The College has called evidence that three of the Member’s books titled “On Time! On Task! On a Mission!”, “The Joys of Teaching Boys”, and “Leading with Passion and Purpose” include sentences and paragraphs from other, unattributed sources. Specifically, “On Time! On Task! On a Mission!” (Exhibit 4, Tab 6), published in 2002, includes language that is largely copied from a biography page on a website by Richard Gleb, who taught in Los Angeles in the 1990’s and wrote a blog titled “Los Angeles Unified School District: Inner-City School Teacher Blues” (Exhibit 4, Tab 6A). Additionally, that book includes paragraphs that appear in an article by Morton Inger about teacher collaboration published in 1993 (Exhibit 4, Tab 7A). “The Joys of Teaching Boys” (Exhibit 4, Tab 8), published in 2008 includes, without attribution, material which previously appeared in a 2004 article by Heather Blair and Kathy Sanford (Exhibit 4, Tab 8A). Finally, the book titled “Leading with Passion and Purpose” (Exhibit 4, Tab 9) contains passages which previously appeared in works by Pierre du Plessis, Lloyd Conley, Solly Hlongwane, M. Hayes Mizell, Vincena Ferrandino, and Gerald Tirozzi (Exhibit 4, Tab 10A).
(3) Legal Conclusions
38The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsection 1(5). The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that plagiarism is conduct that is so notorious that expert evidence of the standard is not required pursuant to the guidance of the Divisional Court in Novick. The Panel is cognizant of the fact that the examples of notorious conduct mentioned by the Superior Court in Novick include misconduct such as physical and sexual abuse. However, the Panel finds that the misconduct does not have to rise to the level of physical or sexual violence to be notorious. The Panel finds that misconduct involving blatant dishonesty, such as using others’ work without attribution, is obviously inappropriate in an academic and educational setting. This is misconduct which is “so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons”: Novick at para. 71.
39The standards of the profession include, among other policies and publications, the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was a breach of the Ethical Standards of “Trust”, which states that members should embody fairness, openness, and honesty in their professional relationships with students, colleagues, and the public, and “Integrity”, which states that members should embody “honesty, reliability and moral action”. The Member failed to embody these standards by using the work of others without attribution and presenting his work as his own to colleagues, students and the public. By the Member’s admission, his action fell short of the standards of the teaching profession.
40The Panel finds that the Member issued documents in his professional capacity that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsection 1(12). There are three elements to this head of professional misconduct: first, that the documents were issued in the Member’s professional capacity; second, that they contained a false or misleading statement; and third, that the Member knew or ought to have known that they contained such a statement. These three elements are made out in the Member’s case. First, while publishing op-eds and blog posts is not part of the formal duties of a director of education, the Member testified that he was expected to be in the public eye as part of his role. Additionally, in his op-eds, blog posts, and speeches, the Member was identified as the Director of Education for the Board. Second, the plagiarized works contained false and misleading statements as they were attributed entirely to the Member when they included sometimes verbatim writing from other authors. Third, the Panel finds that the Member ought to have known that the works were plagiarized. As the Director of Education, the Member had a responsibility to ensure that everything that was published in his name was accurate, and that it was accurately attributed to him. Avoiding plagiarism is a basic educational tenet that is taught early on in schools. Furthermore, the Member held advanced post-secondary degrees where anti-plagiarism is a basic part of the curriculum. As such, the Panel finds that the Member ought to have confirmed that any work published in his name as the Director of Education of the Toronto District School Board was free from plagiarism and properly attributed. Having failed to do this, the Member issued documents in his professional capacity that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement.
41The Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher.1 Section 264(1)(c) requires members to demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues, and it is commonly understood to mean that members must act as positive role models for students. In school, students are taught that they should complete assignments on their own. Where they have referred to someone else’s work, that work should always be appropriately attributed. By taking credit for work that he did not author, the Member acted in a manner lacking honesty and integrity, failed to act as a positive role model for students, and thus failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.
42The Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Disgraceful conduct is the most severe – this is conduct that casts serious doubt on the Member’s moral fitness or ability to be a member of the profession. Dishonourable conduct is similar but not as severe – this is conduct that has an element of moral failing and is usually engaged by, but is not limited to, conduct of dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or other similar moral shortcomings. Unprofessional conduct is conduct that involves poor professional judgment by a member. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in this case would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional. Publishing others’ work without attribution is the kind of dishonest conduct that would properly be characterized as dishonourable. As a director of education and therefore a prominent leader within the education community, the Member’s dishonest conduct showed particularly poor moral and professional judgment and set a bad example for students, teachers and administrators.
43Similarly, the Member’s conduct, as described above, was unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. When a director of education writes and publishes multiple works that contain plagiarized material, this undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and violates the trust that parents, students, and the public place in board leadership and administration.
I. Penalty
44This matter has been scheduled for a penalty hearing, which will take place on December 2, 2021.
Date: November 17, 2021
John Hamilton, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Diane Ballantyne, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Jonathan Rose Member, Discipline Panel