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
Vincent D. Palangio, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
VINCENT D. PALANGIO (REGISTRATION #251720)
PANEL: Nicola Powadiuk, OCT, Chair Marlène Marwah Tom Potter
HEARD: April 7, 2021
Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Angela Zhu, for Vincent D. Palangio 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 April 7, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Vincent D. Palangio (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation attend on his behalf. 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 April 29, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Vincent D. Palangio 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(e) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);2
(f) 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:
Vincent D. Palangio 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the District School Board Ontario North East (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
During the 2014-2015 academic year, Student 1 was a male student at the School.
Inappropriate Videos
- The Member showed inappropriate videos to students in his class from September 1, 2014 to October 31, 2015, including but not limited to:
(a) “The Substitute Teacher”, a part of the Key & Peele series of comedy videos;
(b) “Grabbed My Dick”, a part of the Key & Peele series of comedy videos;
(c) “I Said Bitch”, part of the Key & Peele series of comedy videos;
(d) “Rumble Fish”, a movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola which contains violence, nudity and inappropriate language.
- The videos shown by the Member were not approved by the Board and had no connection to the Ontario curriculum. The videos were disturbing and upsetting to some of the students. The Member acknowledges that showing these videos to students showed a lack of professional judgement and was a breach of the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession.
Principal’s Direction re: Student 1
The Member was instructed by the School principal on or about October 6, 2015 not to allow Student 1 to leave his classroom due to concerns regarding a potential for activities which would impact Student 1’s safety.
The principal visited the Member’s classroom on or about October 8, 2015 and discovered that Student 1 was not present. The Member later acknowledged that he had permitted Student 1 to leave the classroom contrary to the principal’s direction. The Member acknowledges that his failure to adequately supervise Student 1 put Student 1’s safety at risk and that this too was a breach of the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession.
Auto Shop Incident
The Member was assigned to an on-call shift for a Grade [XXX] auto class on or about October 7, 2015. The Member was covering the second half of the on-call shift.
The Member’s assignment involved supervising both the classroom and the auto shop adjacent to the classroom. The auto shop contained vehicles owned by the School. When the Member arrived in the classroom, three or four students were working on a truck in the auto shop.
Several other students entered the auto shop during the Member’s on-call shift. The Member chose to remain in the classroom and did not enter the auto shop until a student advised him of misbehaviour occurring in the auto shop.
The Member investigated and instructed the misbehaving students to stop. Thereafter the Member allowed the students to remain in the auto shop unsupervised. After the Member left the auto-shop, the students’ misbehaviour continued and resulted in damage to a golf cart and a tricycle owned by the School.
Board Discipline
- The Board investigated the allegations and concluded that they were founded. The Member was subsequently issued a letter of discipline and suspended for three days without pay from October 26 to 28, 2015 inclusive. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the letter of discipline received by the Member.
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(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only], 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, he 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 with 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 allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as proceeding under both subsection 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. 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 7, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 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 12 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.
9The Panel finds that the Member abused his students psychologically or emotionally. In coming to this decision, the Panel relied primarily on the Member’s admission that his behaviour constitutes psychological or emotional abuse in combination with the fact that the Member’s misconduct resulted in some students being disturbed and upset by his actions. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member showed his students videos that had no connection to the Ontario curriculum. Some of these videos contained violence, nudity, and inappropriate language and were disturbing and upsetting to some of the Member’s students. By showing these videos to his class, the Member displayed a lack of professional judgment and his behaviour resulted in the emotional or psychological abuse of students.
10The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the bylaws. In particular, the Member failed to comply with section 32 of the bylaws, which outlines the Standards of Practice and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. The Member failed to comply with the Ethical Standard of “Care” by permitting Student 1 to leave his classroom when doing so may have put the student’s safety at risk. The standard of “Care” prescribes that Members express their commitment to students’ well-being, which the Member failed to do by his misconduct.
11The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, teachers are required to set a proper example for students and to exemplify the virtues set out in subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act. By showing videos that include violence, nudity, and inappropriate language and that were disturbing to some students, the Member acted in a way that showed a lack of moral character and poor judgment. His conduct was at odds with his duties as a teacher.
12The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional. The Member acted unprofessionally by failing to properly supervise the auto shop class. By his actions, the Member jeopardized the safety and well-being of the students in that class. Similarly, the misconduct was unbecoming a member. It caused the public to lose confidence in the teaching profession and violated the trust that the public places in members. Parents expect that their children will be safe while under the care of members of the profession. The Member’s failure to adequately supervise his students significantly undermined this expectation.
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 7, 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 three 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. If the Oral Decision and Order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to commencing or returning to teaching or any position requiring 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 boundary violations, professional ethics, and 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;
(iii) the course shall be completed no more than twelve (12) months before commencing or returning to teaching or any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
(b) within thirty (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
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. Will, 2021 ONOCT 1, Ontario College of Teachers v. Blier, 2016 ONOCT 4, Ontario College of Teachers v. Lewsaw, 2019 ONOCT 35, Ontario College of Teachers v. Tadontsop, 2020 ONOCT 190, Ontario College of Teachers v. Orme, 2019 ONOCT 107, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Stirling, 2007 ONOCT 58.
15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the Member’s misconduct was not an isolated incident but was repeated during the course of more than a year. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted the misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Additionally, the Member regretted his lapse in judgment and he has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in his lengthy teaching career. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
16The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members are expected to use appropriate teaching tools in the classroom and to ensure that students are properly supervised. 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.
17Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a three-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 three-month suspension is justified in this case. The suspension will serve as 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 April 22, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations, professional ethics, and classroom management is intended to assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. If the Member returns to teaching, the coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher, will help him to better supervise students, and assist him to make better decisions in his choice of curriculum materials.
19The 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
Nicola Powadiuk, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel
Tom Potter Member, Discipline Panel