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
Aleida Marianne Sanderson-Bagchus, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ALEIDA MARIANNE SANDERSON-BAGCHUS (REGISTRATION #105016)
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Lois Figg Alain Martel, OCT
HEARD: May 31, 2021
Charlotte-Anne Malischewski, for the Ontario College of Teachers Angela Zhu, for Aleida Marianne Sanderson-Bagchus 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 May 31, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Aleida Marianne Sanderson-Bagchus (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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 May 27, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Aleida Marianne Sanderson-Bagchus 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 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) she abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;2
(f) she engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;3
(g) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(h) 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);
(i) 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);
(j) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Aleida Sanderson-Bagchus is a retired 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 Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Hamilton, Ontario.
2014-2015 Academic Year:
During the 2014-2015 academic year, Student 1 was a female student in the Member’s grade [XXX] class. Student 1 was partnered with a friend who happened to be Muslim.
The Member approached the two students and made a comment to them to the effect that they could not date because they were of different races.
2015-2016 Academic Year:
During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member approached Student 2, a female student of Asian descent, and with no apparent reason, asked Student 2, “How’s China Town?” Student 2 was offended by the Member’s comment.
Student 3 was a female student in the Member’s grade [XXX] class. As Student 3 was walking back to her desk after using the bathroom, the Member made a comment about the student’s “butt jiggling.” This comment was heard by Student 1 and other students present in the class.
On another occasion, Student 1, who, in that year was a student in the Member’s grade [XXX] class, was dressed in a long skirt with a slit up the side. The Member asked Student 1 for whom she was trying to look sexy and made the observation that Student 1 had “nice legs.”
During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member also:
(a) embarrassed a student by suggesting that she was not intellectually fit to be in her current grade;
(b) described a student as “ugly”;
(c) prohibited a student from using the washroom during class;
(d) belittled the condition of anxiety as a legitimate mental health issue;
(e) discussed a student’s poor academic performance in front of other students;
(f) yelled on multiple occasions in class.
2016-2017 Academic Year:
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 4 was a grade [XXX] male student at the School. He was not, and had never been, a student in any of the Member’s classes.
In or about late February or early March 2017, Student 4 and his classmates were preparing food as part of a class activity. The Member was present at the time and was helping the students around the kitchen.
After the class had finished eating and cleaning up, the Member approached Student 4 and asked if he was done and how he had enjoyed the food. When Student 4 indicated that he had finished and had liked it, the Member rubbed Student 4’s stomach and said, “Oh yeah. It’s in there all right.”
When the Member touched Student 4, he reacted by turning his body away from her, with the result that the Member’s hand then slipped to Student 4’s lower back around his pant waistband. The student stepped back, accidentally stepping on a classmate’s foot and drawing attention to himself. The Member then walked away.
In or about the week of April 17, 2017, Student 4 was walking down a hallway at the School carrying cookies that he had made. He encountered the Member who asked to try one. The Member then looked at Student 4 and stated, “I’ll have to have you come in one day at lunch and cook something for me, if you catch my drift.” While making this comment to Student 4, the Member raised her eyebrow. The Member’s comment made Student 4 feel uncomfortable.
Approximately one week later, Student 4 was walking down a School hallway when the Member spotted him and called his name, saying, “Don’t walk by without saying hello. Come over.” The Student approached the Member as requested, and she asked Student 4 what grade he was in. When Student 4 responded, the Member replied, “That makes you [XXX], right? You look pretty good for a [XXX] year old.”
The Member then asked Student 4 if he had considered taking one of her classes the following year. When Student 4 commented that he was signed up for a particular class, the Member stated, “Oh, we should have a great time, won’t we.”
On or about April 26, 2017, Student 4 was at his locker. The Member was passing down the hallway on her mobility scooter and called out Student’s 4 name, referring to him as “my best friend.” Other students in the hallway heard the Member’s comment and began teasing Student 4 about it. Student 4 felt embarrassed.
In addition to the foregoing facts, the Member had been warned by the School on a number of previous occasions, beginning as early as 2009, about her inappropriate communication and interactions with students, which resulted in suspensions, verbal and written warnings and a letter of expectations.
On June 30, 2017, after 28 years of teaching, the Member retired from the Board. Her retirement from the College was effective November 13, 2018.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 18 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).
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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading no contest 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 Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) 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;
(f) she understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, 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 sought the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (e) and (f) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5) and 1(7.3), and that she engaged in sexual abuse of a student and sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation in subsection 1(5) was being sought as the College is proceeding under subsection 1(14) and as such the allegation under subsection 1(5) becomes redundant. With respect to the withdrawal of the sexual abuse and sexual misconduct allegations, College Counsel submitted that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding under these allegations and that the conduct fell more appropriately under other heads of misconduct. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on May 31, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 18 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conduct which included making demeaning and culturally insensitive comments to students and rubbing Student 4’s stomach.
9The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused students, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. On multiple occasions, the Member yelled at students in class. The Member also repeatedly made inappropriate comments to students such as commenting about Student 3’s “butt jiggling”, telling Student 1 that she had “nice legs”, saying (with her eyebrow raised) to Student 4, “I’ll have you come in one day at lunch and cook something for me, if you catch my drift” and referring to Student 4 as her “best friend” in front of other students. The Member’s comments made Student 4 feel uncomfortable and embarrassed. Furthermore, the Member made racist and culturally insensitive comments to Student 1 and Student 1’s friend, who happened to be Muslim, and to Student 2, a student of Asian descent (i.e., “How’s China Town?”). The Member’s comment made Student 2 feel offended. The Member also described a student as “ugly”, discussed students’ poor academic performance in front of other students, and suggested that a student was not smart enough to be in her grade. The Panel finds that yelling at students, making inappropriate and demeaning comments about the physical appearance of students, and making offensive comments to students constitutes verbal abuse by the Member.
10The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member rubbed Student 4’s stomach. Student 4 reacted by turning his body away from the Member and this resulted in the Member’s hand slipping to Student 4’s lower back around his pant waistband. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes physical abuse of a student. This type of physical contact with a student is completely inappropriate and demonstrates a lack of respect for the professional boundaries that teachers must maintain with students.
11The Member’s conduct constitutes psychological or emotional abuse of students contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s culturally insensitive comment to Student 2 offended her. Furthermore, the Member’s inappropriate comments to Student 4 made him feel uncomfortable and embarrassed as described above. The Member also embarrassed a student by suggesting that she was not intellectually fit to be in her current grade. Given the power dynamic that exists between teachers and students, it is emotionally abusive for teachers to make comments to students that make them feel offended, uncomfortable or embarrassed at school. The Member’s conduct therefore amounts to psychological or emotional abuse of students.
12The Panel finds that the Member breached 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. In particular, the Panel finds that the Member breached the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect”. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to model respect for cultural values, social justice, freedom and democracy, among other values. Among other things, the Member prohibited a student from using the washroom during class and made physically abusive contact with Student 4. The Member also made inappropriate, demeaning and culturally insensitive comments to students. The Member’s comments caused psychological or emotional harm to several students. As such, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct demonstrates a complete disregard for students’ well-being and a lack of respect for cultural diversity and inclusion.
13The 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. Section 264(1)(b) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage pupils in the pursuit of learning. The Member failed in this duty when she embarrassed a student by suggesting that she was not intellectually fit to be in her current grade and discussed a student’s poor academic performance in front of other students. In addition, section 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models. By repeatedly making inappropriate and offensive comments to several students and by physically abusing Student 4, the Member acted as a poor role model. As such, the Member’s conduct described above was at odds with her duties as a teacher.
14The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct which included making offensive and embarrassing comments to several students and physically abusing Student 4, was completely unacceptable for a trusted member of the profession. The Member also demonstrated poor professional judgment by belittling the condition of anxiety as a legitimate mental health issue. Members of the teaching profession are expected to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for students and to safeguard students’ well-being. The Member failed to meet these expectations.
15The Panel finds that the Member’s abusive conduct as described above, 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 inappropriate behaviour.
F. RESIGNATION, UNDERTAKING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
16On March 25, 2021, the Member entered into a Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment with the College (Exhibit 4) in which she agreed to the following terms and conditions:
I hereby resign as a member of the Ontario College of Teachers with immediate effect.
I undertake that following my resignation, I will not teach in any public or private school in Ontario or work in any position which requires membership in the Ontario College of Teachers.
I will not seek reinstatement of my Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
I understand that a breach of this Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment, may constitute professional misconduct and that in those circumstances, should I obtain a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Ontario College of Teachers will be at liberty to re-institute these proceedings.
I acknowledge that my status on the Public Register of the Ontario College of Teachers will be “Resigned-Cancelled” and the notation will read as follows:
“On March 25, 2021, the Member resigned her membership with the Ontario College of Teachers and has undertaken never to teach again nor to seek reinstatement of her Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The Member resigned her membership while a disciplinary proceeding was pending.”
I acknowledge and understand that decisions of the Discipline Committee are available on the Ontario College of Teachers’ website.
I acknowledge my understanding about the scope, purpose and effect of my execution of this Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgement and am executing same voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
G. PENALTY Decision
17The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on May 31, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty, given the Member’s undertaking, and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”); and
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 8 months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.
H. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
18The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties and notes that the Member has resigned as a member of the College and has undertaken to never seek reinstatement and to never again work in any teaching position in a public or private school in Ontario or in any other position that would require membership in the College. 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, given the Member’s Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment, 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. Armstrong, 2019 ONOCT 49, Ontario College of Teachers v. Mate, 2018 ONOCT 65, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Orton, 2017 ONOCT 100.
19The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are many aggravating factors in this case. First, the Member’s misconduct was repeated and spanned over several years. Second, the Member’s conduct involved several students. Third, the Member’s conduct caused emotional harm to several students. Finally, the Member engaged in similar misconduct despite having previously received numerous warnings by the School about her inappropriate communication and interactions with students, which resulted in suspensions, verbal and written warnings and a letter of expectations. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties, in conjunction with the Member’s Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment, is reasonable.
20The Panel finds that the reprimand, together with the terms set out in the Member’s Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment, will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and make clear to other members that the profession will not tolerate the kind of misconduct exhibited by the Member. The Member engaged in a highly concerning pattern of inappropriate conduct which included multiple instances of verbal abuse of students and physical abuse of a student. 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.
21Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that an eight-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.
22The Panel notes that the Member resigned while the discipline hearing was pending. She also undertook to never reapply. In taking these steps, the Panel was reassured that the Member had insight into her conduct and her personal circumstances. However, in this case, the decision to resign and never reapply was a significant and potent specific deterrent. The eight-month suspension (which the Panel has authority to order even when a member has resigned) communicates to the profession at large that such conduct will result in a strong and lengthy suspension.
23The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: June 9, 2021
Irene Dembek, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Lois Figg Member, Discipline Panel
Alain Martel, OCT Member, Discipline Panel