Ontario College of Teachers v. Brown, 2021 ONOCT 58

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Brown 2021 ONOCT 58 Date: 2021-06-21

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 Regan James Brown, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS – and – REGAN JAMES BROWN (REGISTRATION #212877)

PANEL: Nicola Powadiuk, OCT, Chair Andrew Glenny Pauline Smart

HEARD: June 21, 2021

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for Regan James Brown 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.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on June 21, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Regan James Brown (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 27, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Regan James Brown 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 failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(c) 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);

(d) 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);

(e) 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. Regan James Brown is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached 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 Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario (the “Board”).

3. At all material times during the 2014-2015 school year, and up until December 12, 2016, the Member taught at [XXX] School (the “School”), an [XXX] school in [XXX], Ontario. The Board transferred the Member to [XXX] School [XXX] in [XXX], Ontario, effective December 15, 2016.

February 2015:

4. During the 2014-2015 school year, the Member coached the School’s [XXX] team.

5. The School received a parent complaint on February 24, 2015 about an incident involving the Member that occurred the previous evening at the [XXX]. On the morning of February 26, 2015, the Principal and Vice Principal met with the Member and his representative. After discussing the incident, the Principal advised the Member that he would no longer be coaching the [XXX] team and told the Member that she could not in good conscience let the Member coach in view of her concerns about the Member’s behaviour.

6. The Member, agitated and angry with the Principal’s decision, began to yell as his representative ushered him out of the office. The Member grabbed his bags and went into the staff room. He threw his bag, and his [XXX] which was attached to the bag, against the wall. Then he kicked and punched a cupboard door. The Member’s behaviour was witnessed by colleagues.

7. By letter dated March 10, 2015, the Superintendent advised the Member that his conduct and his response to his Principal was “unacceptable”, and reminded him that “previously on multiple occasions you have been reprimanded for yelling and swearing while coaching, and that previously it was explained to you that if this was to happen again, you would not be coaching”. Among other issues discussed, the Superintendent advised the Member that he needed to ensure that “at no time in the future will [he] … become verbally or physically aggressive or violent”. The Superintendent told the Member he could not coach at the School for the remainder of 2014-2015 and for 2015-2016, and urged the Member to seek counselling, following which they would meet to review the Member’s commitment to the Board’s expectations: “we need to ensure that you never display the anger or aggression witnessed at the school and that you take responsibility for your actions and develop alternative skills to deal with your emotions”. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s Discipline Letter dated March 10, 2015.

2016-2017:

8. After a parent complained about the Member’s conduct towards her child in class in September 2016, the Principal sent the Member home with pay pending investigation, and contacted the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) about a possible physical interaction involving the Member. CAS investigated by interviewing four students from the Member’s class, as well as the Member, and concluded the allegation had not been verified.

9. The Board held a meeting with the Member and his representatives on November 23, 2016 to discuss its concerns. Those present observed that the Member grew increasingly frustrated as the meeting progressed. During this meeting, the Board advised the Member that he was required to meet with a behaviour consultant prior to returning to work.

10. The Member met with the consultant the following day. The consultant reported to the Superintendent that when the Member arrived for their session regarding classroom management strategies and relationship building with students, the Member advised that he viewed the meeting as “punishment” and was present “under duress”. He was angry that the incident had been reported, and expressed his opinion that neither the Superintendent nor the Principal treated him fairly, among other opinions. Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Consultant’s Report to the Superintendent dated November 24, 2016.

11. On November 30, 2016, the Principal wrote a letter to the Board setting out her concerns regarding the Member. In addition to noting that at the November 23, 2016 meeting the Member displayed anger and raised his voice at the Superintendent, she recorded that the Member had leaned into her (the Principal’s) personal space and glared at her, as he indicated his lack of patience with adults and told her he intended to speak with her one day about why she called the CAS. The Principal believed the Member was trying to intimidate her. She was concerned that the Member would confront her if he returned to her School, to the extent that she felt compelled to generate a plan for her physical safety in relation to meeting with the Member alone in her office. Attached as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Principal’s Letter dated November 30, 2016.

12. On December 12, 2016, the Board issued the Member a written warning and a disciplinary transfer to a new school to begin on December 15, 2016, after taking into account various considerations including the Principal’s concerns, and the Member’s angry statements and demeanour during their meetings. Attached as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Board’s Letter to the Member dated December 12, 2016.

Threats:

13. On December 14, 2016, the Member confided in two colleagues that he was angry and upset with the Principal. On previous occasions, the Member had described both his current and former principals using inappropriate foul language. On this occasion, the Member expressed that he “was so angry that he did not know what he would do if he saw [the Principal]”, and said, “I am so mad I understand why people go postal”.

14. Both colleagues were concerned about the Principal’s safety, and spoke to the Principal privately about these concerns, including their belief that if the Member and the Principal were in the School at the same time, the Member’s anger could escalate.

15. After speaking with the colleagues, the Principal advised her Superintendent that she learned of threats made by the Member against her well being, and had been “strongly advised not to be present” when the Member attended the School to collect his belongings.

16. The Principal also contacted the police, who attended the School the following morning. Police spoke with the Member’s colleagues, following which they confirmed to the Principal that the threat by the Member was in relation to her safety and well-being.

17. The Board sent the Member home with pay pending investigation on December 15, 2016 and arranged for security to be present at the School on December 16, 2016, as a result of the Member’s threat as reported to police.

Peace Bond:

18. On February 16, 2017, the Member entered into a 12-month common law peace bond in the Ontario Court of Justice. Conditions included to keep the peace and be of good behaviour; not to have contact with the Principal or to be within 100 meters of her, her residence, her work; and, not to possess any weapons. Attached as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the Peace Bond Order, dated February 16, 2017.

Board Investigation:

19. On March 29, 2017, the Member and his representative met with the Board. He acknowledged he used the word “postal” when speaking to colleagues, and explained the reference was meant to convey that he understood why people “snapped”. He further acknowledged he was “beyond angry”, believing the Principal had created the entire issue, and acknowledged he may also have said that he was “so angry that I don’t know what I would do if I saw the bitch”.

20. By letter dated June 14, 2017, the Board advised the Member that, upon completing its investigation, it concluded that he “made threatening comments regarding the Principal of the School”. The Board took into account that the Member acknowledged his misconduct, expressed regret for his action, and apologized to the Principal, and suspended the Member without pay for ten days. Attached as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the Board’s Letter to the Member dated June 14, 2017.

21. The Member’s association grieved the Board’s discipline. On or about June 15, 2017, the grievances were withdrawn upon the Board and the Member entering into Minutes of Settlement in which, among other terms:

(a) the Member acknowledged that the threatening comments made on or about December 14, 2016 regarding his Principal “represent serious misconduct” and confirmed that he “regrets his actions” and will forward a written apology to his Principal;

(b) the Member acknowledged the Board’s suspension letter was issued for just cause;

(c) the Member agreed to seek medical advice from a physician or psychologist (“health practitioner”) regarding his fitness to work in view of the conduct described in the discipline letter dated December 12, 2016, and the health practitioner shall provide the Board with a letter confirming that s/he (i) saw the suspension and discipline letters and (ii) certifies the Member is fit to return to teaching duties, and is participating in any treatment regime recommended in light of his conduct;

(d) the Member agreed to attend an 8 hour anger management course by August 15, 2017, and to provide proof of completion to the Board;

(e) the Board agreed to reinstate the Member to teaching duties once his health practitioner confirmed his fitness to work.

Attached as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the Minutes of Settlement signed June 2017, including Appendix A – Apology Letter, and the Certification of Completion of Anger Management online course through Anger Management Resources Inc., dated August 8, 2017.

22. The Member is currently teaching at [XXX] School.

GUILTY PLEA

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

24. 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(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19).

25. 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 having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

26. 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 subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought as proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. The Panel granted the request.

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on June 21, 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) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 22 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 repeatedly engaged in aggressive behaviour and made threatening comments towards the Principal.

9The 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 Member breached the standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” and the ethical standards of “Trust” and “Respect”. The standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” requires members to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. The ethical standard of “Trust” provides that “Members’ professional relationships with […] colleagues are based on trust.” The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to “honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development.” The Member breached these standards as set out below.

10On multiple occasions, the Member displayed aggressive and violent behaviour in front of the Principal, the Superintendent and his colleagues. Such behaviour included getting angry, yelling, throwing his bag against the wall, kicking and punching a cupboard door. In addition, the Principal reported that during the Board meeting of November 23, 2016, the Member had leaned into her personal space and glared at her. The Principal felt that the Member was trying to intimidate her to the extent that she felt compelled to generate a plan for her safety. Furthermore, the Member made threats towards the safety and well-being of the Principal, which led the Principal to contact the police and the Board to arrange for security to be present at the School. The Panel finds that by repeatedly engaging in such aggressive and threatening behaviour, the Member failed to foster a collaborative and safe working environment with his colleagues, and more particularly with the Principal. The Member’s conduct as described above, also broke the trust which his Principal, the Superintendent and his colleagues had placed in him. Similarly, by describing his current and former principals using inappropriate foul language and referring to the Principal as a “bitch”, the Member was disrespectful and offensive towards his superiors. Aggressive, threatening, and disrespectful behaviour has no place in a learning environment and falls below the professional and ethical standards of the profession.

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. Section 264(1)(d) requires teachers to “assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school.” The Member became angry, aggressive and violent when he was informed of the Principal’s and Superintendent’s decisions in relation to complaints made against him. In addition, he made threats in relation to the safety and well-being of the Principal. The Panel notes that the Member felt that he had been treated unfairly by the Principal and Superintendent. However, instead of co-operating with them to peacefully resolve any conflict or any unfair treatment which he felt he may have been subject to, the Member resorted to anger, aggression, violence, and threats. Using anger, aggression and violence in the workplace and making threats towards colleagues are incompatible with developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among staff. One must not engage in such behaviour, even if one feels they have been wronged. As such, the Member’s conduct was at odds with his duties as a teacher.

12The Member breached subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By getting angry, engaging in violent behaviour and by making threats towards the Principal, the Member’s conduct was disgraceful and dishonourable. Disgraceful and dishonourable conduct includes conduct which casts doubt on the member’s moral fitness to practise the profession. It is unacceptable for teachers, who are expected to be upstanding members of the school community, to use violence and threats in the workplace. Such conduct, which makes their colleagues feel concerned about their safety, cast doubt on their moral fitness to practise the profession. Moreover, the Member demonstrated a lack of professional judgment by using foul language to describe his current and former principals. As a teacher, the Member was expected to behave honourably, respectfully, and professionally in the workplace, even if he felt that he had been wronged. The Member did the opposite and as such his behaviour was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

13Similarly, the Member’s conduct as described above was 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 engage in aggressive and threatening behaviour in a school environment.

F. PENALTY DECISION

14The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 21, 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 via 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 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 or, if the Oral Decision and Order is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding conflict resolution and anger management strategies, 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 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

15The 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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Armstrong, 2019 ONOCT 49, Ontario College of Teachers v. Charette, 2018 ONOCT 32, Ontario College of Teachers v. Camani, 2021 ONOCT 29 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bielby, 2018 ONOCT 38.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are many aggravating factors in the present case. First, there is the repeated nature of the Member’s aggressive conduct. Second, the Member’s aggressive behaviour was directed towards his female superiors. Third, the Member’s conduct made the Principal feel concerned for her safety and well-being to the extent that she felt compelled to generate a plan for her safety, to contact the police and to have the Board arrange for security to be present at the School on December 16, 2016. Finally, following the misconduct, the Member was not initially apologetic. 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.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated aggressive, violent and threatening behaviour, despite warnings from the Board after the first incident in February 2015, warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members are expected to behave professionally and respectfully with colleagues, including when they are in situations they may perceive as frustrating or unfair. They are also required to uphold a safe and collegial work environment. 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.

18Given 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 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. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on September 1, 2021.

19The Panel notes that the Member has already undertaken a course on anger management (Exhibit 2, Exhibit H). The Panel finds that a further course of instruction regarding conflict resolution and anger management strategies will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher. It will help him to develop positive conflict resolution strategies and make better decisions in any future interactions with colleagues and other members of the school community.

20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.