DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Léonard 2021 ONOCT 38

Date: 2021-04-07

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

Myriam Anne Yvette Léonard, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

MYRIAM ANNE YVETTE LÉONARD (REGISTRATION #524668)

PANEL: Diane Ballantyne, OCT, Chair

Richard Filion

Josée Landriault, OCT

HEARD: January 11 and April 1, 2021

Danielle Miller and Kathryn McChesney, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Angela Zhu, for Myriam Anne Yvette Léonard

Rebecca Durcan, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on January 11 and April 1, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Myriam Anne Yvette Léonard (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 February 5, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Myriam Anne Yvette Léonard is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

(b) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);²

(c) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

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

(e) she 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);³

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

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Myriam Anne Yvette Léonard 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (the “Board”) as a secondary teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario teaching [XXX].

3. On April 4, 2017 the Member taught her students swear words in[XXX]. While doing so, she used the English and [XXX] words for “fuck”, “slut”, “whore” and the phrase “get the hell out”.

4. On April 25, 2017, the Member received a letter of expectation from the Principal of the School related to the above behaviour. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the April 25, 2017 letter.

5. On November 8, 2017 as part of a [XXX] lesson, the Member requested that a male and female student stand at the front of the class and demonstrate the [XXX] greeting of “[XXX]” which involves hugging while touching cheeks and kissing the air on either side of each cheek. This made the female student uncomfortable. The Member directed the students to return to their seats without completing the demonstration.

6. In October and/or November 2017, the Member asked a student on one or more occasions to move her car from where it was parked in front of the portable to the staff parking lot. The Member gave her keys to the student who drove her car and parked it for her. Another student from the Member’s class was also in the car at the time.

7. On November 28, 2017, the Member received a letter of discipline and a two day suspension from the Principal of the School related to the above behaviour. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the November 28, 2017 letter.

GUILTY PLEA

8. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

9. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) unprofessional only, and 1(19).

10. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

11. 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 (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation under subsection 1(5) was being sought as proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. The request to withdraw subsection 1(7.2) was being made given the lack of evidence to support such a finding. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Panel find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). 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 April 1, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in inappropriate conduct such as teaching students [XXX] swear words in class and permitting a student to park her car in the staff parking lot.

9The Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14), by breaching the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession set out at section 32.02 of the by-laws. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to show a commitment to students’ well-being and learning. The Member asked students to do a demonstration that involved hugging and touching cheeks, which made a student feel uncomfortable. She also asked a student to drive her car on school property, which put that student’s safety at risk. Both incidents demonstrated the Member’s lack of concern for students’ well-being. In addition, by teaching students [XXX] swear words, the Member failed to show a commitment to students’ learning. The use of profanity has no educational merit and does not promote students’ learning. As such, her actions were contrary to the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession.

10The Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. This section sets out the duties of a teacher. Subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models for students. By teaching students swear words, the Member acted as a poor role model for her students. It is not acceptable for a teacher to use profanity in an educational setting. Subsection 264(1)(e) of the Education Act requires teachers to maintain proper order and discipline on the school ground. It was unacceptable and dangerous for the Member to allow a student to drive her car into the staff parking lot. This did not contribute to a safe and orderly school environment. The Member’s conduct was therefore at odds with her duties as a teacher.

11The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional. The Member acted unprofessionally by teaching profanity to students and making students do a demonstration which involved hugging and touching cheeks. By doing so, the Member failed to exercise good judgment. Similarly, the Member demonstrated poor professional judgment by permitting a student to drive her car on school property, which put the safety of that student at risk. Members of the teaching profession must create a physically and emotionally safe environment for their students. The Member failed to do so.

12The Member’s inappropriate conduct described above was unbecoming a member. It undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and violated the trust that the public places in members.

F. PENALTY DECISION

13The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on April 1, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. 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”);

2. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (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 her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management, 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 her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

14The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Kissel, 2016 ONOCT 28, Ontario College of Teachers v. Bielby, 2018 ONOCT 38, Ontario College of Teachers v. Hutton, 2018 ONOCT 61, Ontario College of Teachers v. Prest, 2019 ONOCT 26, Ontario College of Teachers v. Gocking, 2019 ONOCT 52, Ontario College of Teachers v. McColeman, 2019 ONOCT 109, Ontario College of Teachers v. Turner, 2019 ONOCT 24, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gibb, 2020 ONOCT 142.

15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the Member’s repeated lapses in professional judgment and the fact that the Member put the safety of a student at risk. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, expressed remorse and has not been the subject of College or Board discipline prior to the events at issue in this case. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. Teachers are expected to act professionally, to serve as positive role models and to not put the safety of students at risk. The Member failed to do so by her misconduct. 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.

17The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

18The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: April 7, 2021

Diane Ballantyne, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

Richard Filion

Member, Discipline Panel

Josée Landriault, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
3. 3Allegation narrowed to unprofessional acts only at the request of College Counsel.