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
Robert Vincent Louis Mancini, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ROBERT VINCENT LOUIS MANCINI (REGISTRATION #489260)
PANEL: Nicola Powadiuk, OCT, Chair Élaine Legault Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT
HEARD: January 11, 2021 and February 5, 2021
Shane D’Souza and Kathryn McChesney, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Matthew Wise, for Robert Vincent Louis Mancini
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 January 11, 2021 and February 5, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Robert Vincent Louis Mancini (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 March 23, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Robert Vincent Louis Mancini is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);1
(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 engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;2
(e) he practised or purported to practise the profession while under the influence of any substance or while adversely affected by any dysfunction
(i) which the Member knew or ought to have known impaired the Member’s ability to practise, and
(ii) in respect of which treatment has previously been recommended, ordered or prescribed but the Member has failed to follow the treatment,
contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(8);
(f) he failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(g) he signed or issued, in the Member’s professional capacity, a document that the Member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(h) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(i) 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);
(j) he 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:
Robert Vincent Louis Mancini 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.
During the 2016-2017 school year, the Member was employed as an English teacher at [XXX] (the “School”), a [XXX] operating in [XXX], Switzerland.
During the 2016 - 2017 school year, the Member taught English, Writers Craft and Drama following the Ontario Ministry of Education curriculum.
In October 2016, the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (“OSSLT”) test was scheduled to take place on October 20, 2017 in Ontario and on October 21, 2017 internationally. The Member told students in one of his English classes that they could benefit from the time difference to gain early access to the questions. The Member claimed he had a friend that was able to access the OSSLT questions ahead of the international testing date. The Member told students not to say anything about his offer.
Students reported the Members offer to the Principal.
The Member spoke directly to the Guidance Counselor, as she then was, and asked her if she would like to know the questions ahead of time. The Member was told by the Guidance Counsellor that it was unethical and against the Education Quality and Accountability Office policies to do so.
The Member intended his comments to be in jest but acknowledges that at least some of his students took his offer seriously and that his offer was inappropriate to make.
During October and November of 2016, the Member met students off campus at a café to tutor them in English, History and Social Science and give them direction on writing an essay for his class. He charged the students money for these tutoring lessons. The Member was responsible for marking the essays for which he provided tutoring services and for which he charged the students. The Member ceased charging students and meeting off campus after this issue was raised with the Member by School administration in November of 2016.
In November 2016, the Member failed to properly prepare interim report cards for his students by creating identical report cards for every student, with only the name changed. The School administration brought this to his attention after which he made individual report cards for final marks.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member altered the course outlines for the courses he taught by adding the graphic novel Maus. He also changed an assignment in his English class. He removed the names of the prior teachers who created the original outlines. The outlines were changed to say “Developed by Robert Mancini” rather than “revised by” the Member. The Member did not intend to appropriate the work product of the teachers who had actually created the outlines. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of the original course outlines as well as the outlines revised by the Member in Dramatic Arts, English and The Writers Craft.
During the 2016 - 2017 academic year, the Member was responsible for the [XXX] extra curricular group at the School. His duties included selecting and preparing students for two public competitions throughout the year. The Member did not hold the required meetings and rehearsals or provide students with materials and sufficient assistance in their preparation. On one occasion when the Member did hold a meeting for the [XXX] team, it lasted 18 minutes rather than the 90 minutes allocated for the meeting. Other teachers at the School were required to step in and assist the team.
The Member was eventually removed as the supervisor of the [XXX] group. Following this, the Member asked students to ask the Head of School to have him reinstated as a supervisor.
The Member had heated exchanges in his class with a student in front of his other students. This student was sleeping in the classroom and the Member raised his voice to wake her. Students reported this to the administration and it was addressed with the Member.
The Member did not abide by appropriate boundaries with his students. For instance, he used profanity in class including using the word “shit” and other inappropriate terms. Throughout the 2016 - 2017 academic year, the Member suggested to students that they come to his apartment for food, facials and alcohol. He socialized with students on weekends at local bars and would drink alcohol with them. He also tried to invite himself along on independent travel weekends with students, who refused his offer. The Member invited a group of students to “party” with him in Niagara Falls after they graduated.
The Member encouraged students to only write positive reviews about him in his evaluation and suggested that they should say that he was their favourite teacher and that they would really like him to come back the following year. One student wrote an unflattering evaluation of the Member. The Member removed the unfavourable evaluation before turning the rest to the School administration.
During the 2016 - 2017 academic year, the Member demonstrated poor judgment on school trips while under the influence of alcohol such that it impacted his responsibilities as a teacher. During a School trip in November 2016, the Member drank to excess when dining with other faculty. Students were present in the same restaurant. During a School trip to [XXX] and [XXX] in April 2017, the Member was intoxicated in front of students on several occasions. A student confided in the Member that their [XXX]had passed away. During a group dinner, the Member shared this information with his colleagues while the Member was smiling and giggling after having consumed alcohol.
During the same school trip to [XXX] and [XXX] in April 2017, the Member was required to do evening check ins on the students while at the hotel to make sure they were all safe and accounted for. He did not fulfil this duty and did not check in on students at all during the time he was supposed to. The Member was taken off the supervisory schedule for the remainder of the trip.
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 him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(8), 1(11), 1(12), 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, (s)he [sic] is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) 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 the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he 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 allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 and that the Member engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. The Panel’s permission to withdraw subsection 1(5) was being sought as proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. The Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation of sexual misconduct was being sought as the evidence does not support a finding of sexual misconduct under section 1 of the Act. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 5, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(8), 1(11), 1(12), 1(14), 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 17 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a concerning pattern of inappropriate and unethical conduct.
9The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused students contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member used profanity such as the word “shit” in class, had heated exchanges with a student in class and raised his voice to wake her. The Panel finds that such conduct amounts to verbal abuse by the Member.
10The Member’s conduct constitutes psychological or emotional abuse of students contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, such as having heated exchanges with a student and using profanity in class, affected the emotional well-being of those students. The Panel accepts these submissions and further recognizes that the Member has pleaded guilty to the allegation of psychological or emotional abuse. The Panel places significant weight on the agreement reached between the parties and therefore finds that the Member has psychologically or emotionally abused students.
11The Member practised or purported to practise the profession while under the influence of any substance or while adversely affected by any dysfunction which the Member knew or ought to have known impaired the Member’s ability to practise, contrary to subsection 1(8) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. On several occasions during school trips in the 2016-2017 academic year, the Member consumed alcohol in front of colleagues and students. On one occasion, while intoxicated, the Member shared sensitive information, which a student had confided in him, with his colleagues while the Member was smiling and giggling. This conduct was irresponsible and demonstrated poor professional judgment. Members of the profession are expected to always prioritize the physical and emotional safety of students. It is unacceptable for members to be under the influence of alcohol while supervising students.
12The Member failed to supervise adequately a person who was under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11). During a school trip to [XXX] and [XXX], the Member failed to do an evening check in on students while at the hotel to make sure that they were all safe and accounted for. The Panel finds that by failing to adequately supervise the students, the Member put the safety of these students at risk.
13The Member 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 subsection 1(12) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member removed the names of the prior teachers who had created the original course outlines in Dramatic Arts, English and the Writers Craft and changed the outlines to say “Developed by Robert Mancini” rather than “revised by” the Member (see Exhibit 2 at Exhibit B). Regardless of his intentions, the Member appropriated the work of these prior teachers without properly attributing the work to them.
14The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act, regulations, or by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening section 32 of the College By-Laws, which sets out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. The Member breached the ethical standards of “care”, “trust”, “respect” and “integrity” as set out below.
15The Member breached the ethical standard of “care”, which requires members to express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. Among other things, the Member had heated exchanges with a student in class and raised his voice to wake her. The Member failed to adequately supervise students and put their safety at risk. He furthermore encouraged students to engage in dishonest behaviour by telling them that they could benefit from the time difference to get access to the OSSLT questions ahead of the international testing date. In addition, he created identical report cards for every student, with only the name changed. The Member also failed to provide students with materials and sufficient assistance in their preparation for the [XXX] competitions. The Panel finds that the Member demonstrated a serious lack of commitment to the students’ well-being and learning. He failed to act as a positive role model.
16Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Member breached the ethical standards of “trust” and “respect” when he shared sensitive information which a student had confided in him with his colleagues, while smiling and giggling after having consumed alcohol. By doing so, the Member breached the trust which that student had placed in him.
17In addition, the Member breached the ethical standard of “integrity” which requires members to conduct themselves with “honesty, reliability and moral action”, by engaging in a pattern of inappropriate conduct. Among other things, he charged students for off-campus tutoring lessons after giving them direction on writing an essay for his class that he was responsible for marking, and he removed an unfavourable evaluation which a student made about him before returning the rest of the evaluations to the School administration. Teachers hold a unique position of trust in society and, by virtue of their important role in their communities, they must behave in an ethical manner at all times. The Member failed to meet this expectation by repeatedly behaving dishonestly and unethically.
18The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In addition to the litany of inappropriate conduct set out above, it was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional for the Member to suggest to students to come to his apartment for food, facials and alcohol, to socialize with students at local bars, to drink alcohol with the students and to try to invite himself along on independent travel weekends with students. Members of the teaching profession are expected to be positive role models and to maintain professional boundaries with students. The Member failed to meet these expectations.
19The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate and unethical conduct, is unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is eroded when members of the profession engage in such a concerning pattern of unethical behaviour.
F. PENALTY DECISION
20The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 5, 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 is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of six months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations and 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 30 days of his 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
21The 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. Lowrie, 2015 ONOCT 53, Ontario College of Teachers v. Orton, 2017 ONOCT 100, Ontario College of Teachers v. Labbé, 2018 ONOCT 39, Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bonello, 2019 ONOCT 118.
22The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the repeated nature of the Member’s inappropriate and unethical conduct, and the fact that he put the safety of students at risk. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings at the College in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
23The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, and they are expected to behave in an ethical manner at all times. By engaging in a pattern of inappropriate and unethical conduct, the Member was a poor role model for students, he jeopardized student safety, and he tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession. 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.
24Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on February 20, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
25The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations and professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
26The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 9, 2021
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Claudia Patenaude-Daniels, OCT Member, Discipline Panel