Ontario College of Teachers v. Boys, 2021 ONOCT 49

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Boys 2021 ONOCT 49

Date: 2021-05-24

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

Ronald Kent Douglas Boys, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

RONALD KENT DOUGLAS BOYS (REGISTRATION #419482)

PANEL: Wanda Percival, Chair Kevin McCarthy Claudette Rutherford, OCT

HEARD: May 14, 2021

Jordan Glick and Aly Háji, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Ronald Kent Douglas Boys, self-represented

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 May 14, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Ronald Kent Douglas Boys (the “Member”) attended the hearing and was self-represented. 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 October 6, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Ronald Kent Douglas Boys is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(c) 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);

(d) 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:

1. At all material times, Ronald Kent Douglas Boys was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “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 Bluewater District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. In the academic year 2018/2019, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student at the School with special needs. The Member was aware that Student 1 had special needs and had difficulty [XXX].

4. On March 7, 2019, the Member was teaching a class of Grade [XXX] students at the School. When Student 1 began [XXX], the Member sat beside Student 1 and yelled “[XXX]”, or words to that effect, at Student 1 for at least 45 seconds. The Member then yelled at Student 1 to “grow up”, or words to that effect. A video recording of this incident is attached as Appendix “B”.

5. On May 17, 2019, the Bruce Grey Child and Family Services verified child protection concerns as it pertained to the Member and Student 1.

6. Prior to the incident described in paragraph 4, the Member had received letters of discipline advising him to treat students with respect and not yell at students.

GUILTY PLEA

7. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and Appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-6 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

8. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 4-6 constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

(a) he abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(c) he committed an act or acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and

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

9. 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 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 with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.

10. In light of the Admitted Facts and 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

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on May 14, 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(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7Before setting out its reasons in relation to the Member’s professional misconduct at issue in this case, the Panel will address the threshold issue of why it retains jurisdiction over the Member’s conduct in this case, even though the Member’s membership status was “Retired” at the time of the hearing. College Counsel submitted that the Member continued to be subject to the College’s jurisdiction for the purposes of his disciplinary hearing, pursuant to subsection 14(5) of the Act. The Panel does not agree with College Counsel’s submissions that subsection 14(5) provides the College with continuing jurisdiction in the case of members whose membership status is “Retired”. Nevertheless, the Panel finds that it retains jurisdiction for different reasons.

8Section 14 of the Act states:

14 (1) Every person who holds a certificate of qualification and registration is a member of the College, subject to any term, condition or limitation to which the certificate is subject.

(2) A member may resign his or her membership by filing a resignation in writing with the Registrar.

(3) The certificate of qualification and registration of a person who files a resignation is cancelled.

(4) A certificate of qualification and registration that expires in accordance with the regulations is cancelled.

(5) A person whose certificate of qualification and registration is revoked or cancelled continues to be subject to the jurisdiction of the College for professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity referable to any time during which the person held,

(a) a certificate of qualification and registration under this Act; or

(b) an Ontario Teacher’s Certificate or a letter of standing as a teacher under the Education Act.

9A plain reading of section 14 suggests that a membership can only cease through any one of the following ways: resignation, expiration, revocation, or cancellation; none of which have occurred in this case. There is nothing in the Act to suggest that membership can be cancelled, revoked, or otherwise end by a member’s retirement. A “Retired” status is the functional equivalent of a “Suspended – Non-payment of Fees” membership status, and members with that status remain members of the College and are subject to the College’s jurisdiction for disciplinary and other purposes. Therefore, although the Member’s status was “Retired” at the time of the hearing, he never ceased being a member of the College until that time and the Panel therefore had jurisdiction to hear and decide his case.

10The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 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 yelled at Student 1, a Grade [XXX] student with special needs, and that child protection concerns were verified as it pertained to the Member and Student 1.

11The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused a student, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student with special needs and had difficulty [XXX]. When Student 1 began [XXX] in class, the Member sat beside Student 1 and yelled “[XXX]” at him for at least 45 seconds. The Member also yelled at Student 1 to “grow up”. The Panel has had the opportunity to view the video recording of this incident (Exhibit 2 at Appendix B) and the Panel finds that the Member’s verbally abusive conduct towards Student 1 was evident from that video. The Member abused his position of trust and authority in the most egregious manner by yelling at Student 1, in blatant disregard of his [XXX]. As such, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes verbal abuse of a student.

12The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused Student 1. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s psychological or emotional abuse of Student 1 was evident from the video recording. The Member’s abusive conduct occurred in front of a classroom of children who were laughing while recording this incident. The Panel accepts these submissions and places significant weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded guilty to the allegation of psychological or emotional abuse of a student. Moreover, the Panel finds that by virtue of his young age and his [XXX], Student 1 was a vulnerable student. It can reasonably be inferred that the Member’s conduct that was directed at a vulnerable student would cause psychological or emotional harm to the child. By engaging in such reprehensible conduct, the Member showed a complete disregard for Student 1’s well-being.

13The Member breached subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct toward Student 1. Disgraceful and dishonourable conduct includes conduct which is immoral or dishonest or conduct that casts doubt on a member’s moral fitness or on the member’s inherent ability to discharge the obligations of the profession. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct rises to that level of severity in this case because the subject of the Member’s verbal and psychological abuse was a young student with special needs who had difficulty [XXX]. By targeting this student with his shockingly insensitive behaviour, the Member demonstrated a serious lack of professionalism that called into question his moral fitness as a member of the teaching profession. Members of the teaching profession are expected to safeguard the well-being of students at all times. The Member did the opposite. The teaching profession does not tolerate such reprehensible conduct.

14The Member’s abhorrent conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust is eroded when members of the teaching profession abuse vulnerable students.

F. PENALTY DECISION

15The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on May 14, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand electronically via videoconference, and that 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 is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

16The 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. As the Panel has already addressed the jurisdiction issue above and found that it has jurisdiction because the Member’s membership never ceased despite his “Retired” status, these reasons will address why the Panel made an order in accordance with the parties’ jointly proposed penalty.

17The Panel accepts the College’s submission that the unique nature of the Member’s misconduct in this case made it difficult to find comparable College cases that would establish the appropriate range of penalty. Therefore, in addition to seeking guidance from the decision in Ontario College of Teachers v. Foucault, 2015 ONOCT 22, the Panel also considered decisions from other regulators, including College of Early Childhood Educators v. Reid, 2015 ONCECE 1, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. McIntyre, 2017 ONSC 116, Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Beairsto, 2017 ONCPSD 43, and Horri v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2018 ONSC 3193. None of these cases are on all fours with the Member’s misconduct in this case. However, they stand for the general proposition that the protection of the public interest is a crucial function of the Discipline Committee’s orders. While like cases should be treated alike, the Panel’s order must address the protection of the public, specific and general deterrence, and the need to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the profession and in the College’s ability to regulate the profession effectively in the public interest.

18Although the Panel was not presented with a similar previous case where a member who verbally and psychologically or emotionally abused a student on one occasion was revoked, the Panel agrees with College Counsel’s submission that revocation is an appropriate order given the circumstances of this case. The Panel also recognizes that the parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty in this case, and that this penalty must be accepted unless the exceptionally high threshold for rejecting a joint submission is met, which is not the case here.

19The Panel considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in the Member’s case. The aggravating factors are considerable: Student 1 was a vulnerable young student with special needs; the incident happened in front of other students who were laughing while filming the incident; and, prior to the incident, the Member had received letters of discipline advising him to treat students with respect and not to yell at students. 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 College discipline in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

20The Panel finds that the Member’s abusive conduct towards Student 1, despite prior warnings from the Board, warrants a reprimand by his peers. Teachers are expected to safeguard the well-being of their students. By verbally and psychologically or emotionally abusing Student 1, the Member showed a complete disregard for Student 1’s well-being. 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.

21The Panel finds that revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is appropriate in this case given the nature and gravity of the Member’s conduct. The Member’s conduct towards a vulnerable Grade [XXX] student was reprehensible. Being fully aware that Student 1 had difficulty [XXX], and despite prior warnings from his Board to treat students with respect, the Member nonetheless yelled at Student 1 when the student [XXX] in class. The video recording of this incident (Exhibit 2 at Appendix B) is shocking and demonstrates that the Member is unfit to work closely with vulnerable students as a member of the teaching profession. The Member’s behaviour represents such a departure from currently acceptable social behaviour that the Panel finds that revocation is the only penalty that appropriately responds to such egregious conduct. The teaching profession does not tolerate abusive conduct towards vulnerable students. Accordingly, the Member is no longer entitled to be a member of the teaching profession in Ontario.

22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.