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
Pascal Pierre Germain Baillou, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
PASCAL PIERRE GERMAIN BAILLOU (REGISTRATION #654364)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Élaine Legault Sara Nouini, OCT
HEARD: January 11 and February 3, 2021
Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Jean-Michel Corbeil, for Pascal Pierre Germain Baillou
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.
1In accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, this electronic proceeding was held before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on January 11 and February 3, 2021 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Pascal Pierre Germain Baillou 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 August 13, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Pascal Pierre Germain Baillou 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);
(b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);1
(f) 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);
(g) 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);
(h) 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:
Pascal Pierre Germain Baillou (the "Member") is a retired member of the College. Attached hereto in Schedule 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 Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (the “Board”) as an occasional teacher.
At all material times, Student 1 was a student at École [XXX] in [XXX], Ontario. At all material times, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] student at École [XXX] in [XXX], Ontario. At all material times, Student 3 was a Grade [XXX] student at École [XXX].
Incidents in April 2017
In April 2017, the Member was assigned to École[XXX]. During an incident on April 24, 2017, the Member pushed Student 1 towards the cloakroom and pinched his back. The incident was reported to the Principal, who told the Member not to touch students at any time.
On or about April 26, 2017, the Member was assigned to École [XXX]. At the end of the day when Student 2 was packing up his school bag, he was looking for something that had fallen underneath the table. When he was under the table, Student 2’s foot disconnected the FM microphone cord. The Member was talking and realized that the system was not on. He noticed Student 2 underneath the table. The Member pulled him out by the neck, saying “What are you doing there?” Student 2 started crying. His neck hurt where the Member had squeezed it.
The Member also kicked Student 3 on the knee.
The Board opened an investigation, which found that the Member used physical force on a daily basis to regain control of the classroom and as a disciplinary measure.
At a meeting with the Principal on April 27, 2017, the Member admitted to touching students and said that he found it difficult not to do so.
On May 19, 2017, the Member received a discipline letter and a three-day suspension. Attached hereto in Schedule B is a copy of the letter from the Principal of École [XXX], dated May 19, 2017.
Incidents on November 14, 2017 and January 15, 2018
- On or about November 14, 2017 and January 15, 2018, when he was assigned to École [XXX] in [XXX], Ontario, the Member let the students use personal devices, a phone or tablet, in contravention of the instructions from the Principal of École [XXX]. Despite the Principal’s instructions, the Member continued to allow the students to use their own phone or iPad.
Another Incident in January 2018
- On or about January 19, 2018, when he was assigned to École [XXX], the Member:
(a) disregarded the planning left by the homeroom teacher;
(b) failed to establish discipline in the classroom;
(c) failed to move fragments of broken glass out of students’ reach;
(d) behaved inappropriately with the students; for example, shouting “What’s your problem?” in their faces;
(e) shared violent rhymes with the students;
(f) tickled some students.
- On January 23, 2018, the Member admitted to the Principal that he found classroom management challenging. The Principal gave the Member advice.
Incidents in March 2018
On or about March 19 and 22, 2018, the Member was assigned to teach a Grade [XXX] class at École [XXX] in [XXX], Ontario.
The Member:
(a) called out some students’ last names in a sarcastic manner;
(b) disregarded the planning left by the homeroom teacher;
(c) made the students rowdy with his classroom management style and then, in an effort to restore order, shouted at the students;
(d) used his cell phone and tablet while the students were waiting for instructions and/or to be taught the subject matter.
On May 22, 2018, the Member received a discipline letter and a five-day suspension. Attached hereto in Schedule C is a copy of the letter from the Principal of École [XXX], dated May 22, 2018.
On March 19, 2019, the Member retired from the College.
On March 30, 2019, following two grievances and a Memorandum of Agreement, the Member resigned from his position with the Board.
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(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations of misconduct 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, he is waiving the right to require the College to 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 in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands this Agreement and acknowledges that he is executing it voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the guilty plea, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that permission was being sought from the Panel to withdraw allegation 1(14) because it duplicated allegation 1(5). The Panel granted this request.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 3, 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(7.1), 1(7.2), 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 17 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.
9The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5). The standards include a requirement for members to express their commitment to students' well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice (“Care”). The Member failed to meet this expectation when he used physical force and when he shouted at the students on several occasions. Furthermore, he failed to establish positive discipline and he did not move fragments of broken glass out of students’ reach, which is unsafe for students.
10The Member abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). Instead of adhering or turning to professional classroom management strategies, the Member shouted “What’s your problem?” in students’ faces. He also allowed students to become rowdy in the classroom and then had to shout at them to restore order. The Panel agrees and accepts that shouting at young students, even under trying circumstances, constitutes verbal abuse.
11The Member abused students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1). For example, he pushed Student 1 towards the cloakroom and pinched his back; he pulled Student 2 by the neck from underneath a table; and he kicked Student 3 on the knee. The Member also tickled some students. Teachers are prohibited from touching students or using unnecessary physical force against them. Members of the teaching profession are expected to provide students with a safe learning environment and to use appropriate disciplinary measures in the classroom.
12The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). He grabbed Student 2 by the neck, making him cry from the pain. The Member’s actions with Student 2 and the classroom environment he created were not conducive to students’ learning or their psychological or emotional well-being.
13The Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, 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 and that they “encourage the pupils in the pursuit of learning,” which the Member failed to do in a number of situations. He shared violent rhymes with the students, which is pedagogically inappropriate and demonstrates that he was not a role model for students.
14The Member committed acts that, given all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). He disregarded the planning left by the homeroom teacher. He called out some students’ last names in a sarcastic manner. In addition, he allowed the students to use their own phone or iPad in the classroom, despite the Principal’s instructions. This conduct demonstrates insubordination and poor professional judgment. The Member’s above-mentioned use of unnecessary physical force and his inappropriate verbal interventions with the students under his supervision are further evidence of unprofessionalism and poor professional judgment.
15Similarly, the Member’s conduct as described above is unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19), in that it undermines the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY Decision
16The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 3, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
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.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of six months, as of the 15th calendar day following the oral decision of the Discipline Committee in this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Public Register.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Public Register:
(a) Prior to resuming a teaching position or any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management and appropriate discipline, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall 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 shall 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 said course and the course goals;
(b) Within 30 days of 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
17The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Chéry, 2016 ONOCT 73 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gray, 2017 ONOCT 104.
18The Panel considered the circumstances in this matter in comparison to the two cases provided. Aggravating factors in the Member’s case are his aggressive behaviour and inappropriate classroom management, which were repeated on numerous occasions and involved a number of students. The Member failed to improve his conduct, despite his Principal’s advice and the disciplinary measures imposed by his Board. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted 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.
19The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand by his peers for his repeated inappropriate conduct. The Member’s aggressive behaviour was unacceptable. The Panel expects members to express their commitment to students’ well-being in their professional practice, and avoid shouting at or having physical contact with them. To this end, members are expected to ensure at all times a safe school environment that is conducive to students’ learning. 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 is important because it will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
20Given the seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct in some ways from this matter, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is similar 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 it clear that such professional misconduct is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will be suspended effective February 18, 2021; that is, 15 days after the Panel’s decision and order.
21The Panel considers that the course on anger management and appropriate discipline will contribute to the Member’s rehabilitation process, should he return to teaching or any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration. It will remind him of his obligations as a teacher and help him to make better decisions in his interactions with students.
22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 8, 2021
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel