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 Julie Mazerolle, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JULIE MAZEROLLE (REGISTRATION #406789)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Élaine Legault Myrna Tulandi
HEARD: June 22, 2021
COUNSEL: Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jean-Michel Corbeil, for Julie Mazerolle 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.
1In accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, this electronic proceeding was held before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on June 22, 2021 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Ms. Julie Mazerolle 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 August 12, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Julie Mazerolle 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);
(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 failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14)1;
(f) 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);
(g) 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);
(h) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
5Counsel for the College presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Pleas of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Julie Mazerolle is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto in Appendix 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 Conseil scolaire catholique Franco-Nord (the “Board”) as a teacher at the École [XXX] (the “School”), in [XXX].
During the 2016-2017 school year, the Member was teaching Grade [XXX] at the School. Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3 were students in the Member’s class.
Incident of February 10, 2017
On February 10, 2017, at lunch time, the Member went to see the School Principal to say that Student 1 was playing with the laptop in her classroom. The Member was very angry.
When the students were walking into the classroom after lunch, the Member said “I’m gonna kill him” and/or “I’m going to fuckin’ kill him” with respect to Student 1, in the hall. Students in the hall said, “Who is she going to kill?” and “Who is she mad at?” The language used by the Member was not appropriate and should not be used by a teacher in the course of her duties.
After an investigation, on March 9, 2017 the Member received a disciplinary letter from the Board regarding the incident of February 10, 2017. A copy of the letter from the Director of Human Resources to the Member, dated March 9, 2017, is hereby attached to Appendix B.
Incident of March 23, 2017
On March 23, 2017, the Member was accompanying a group of students to a [XXX] at another school. At the [XXX], the Member came into physical contact with Student 2. She grabbed Student 2 by the collar of his shirt and pulled him up onto the stage, and then she grabbed him from the front. The Member yelled in Student 2’s face. Physical force should not be used as a means of managing a student’s behaviour in these circumstances.
Student 3 mentioned that during the [XXX] he tripped and fell, and he was crying because it hurt. The Member yelled “What are you trying to do? Kill yourself?” She yelled loudly and she was angry. The Member often raised her voice in class and she often used the phrase “Shut up.” The language used by the Member was not appropriate.
The Member often yelled at the students. A colleague offered to monitor the students in the hall at the end of the day to prevent the Member from becoming impatient with the students. In particular, the Member often yelled at Student 2, sometimes in his face. Student 2 cried in class about once a week.
On April 4, 2017, the School Principal, the Superintendent of Education and the Director of Human Resources of the Board had a meeting with the Member and her representative from the AEFO. With respect to her conduct with the students in class, the Member admitted that she raised her voice. The Member acknowledged that a number of principals, for a number of years, had had discussions with her regarding the fact that students were afraid of her and felt that she was yelling in their face.
On April 13, 2017, the Member received a disciplinary letter from the Board regarding the incident of March 23, 2017. A three-day, unpaid suspension was imposed. Furthermore, before returning to her teaching position, the Member was required to successfully complete counselling sessions on appropriate behaviour with students and managing any frustration she might experience in class. A copy of the letter from the Director of Human Resources to the Member, dated April 13, 2017, is hereby attached to Appendix C.
Following the incident of March 23, 2017, a report was made to the Children’s Aid Society, which carried out an investigation. A copy of the letter from the CAS to the Board, dated April 18, 2017, is hereby attached to Appendix D. On April 18, 2017, the CAS notified the Board that:
The Society has concluded its investigation and although physical force cannot be verified, the risk of emotional harm is being verified, as several children reported being fearful and anxious due to Ms. Mazerolle’s behaviour in class.
- From May 3 to June 21, 2017, the Member participated in counselling sessions at the Community Counselling Centre of [XXX]. A copy of the report to the Board, dated June 21, 2017, is hereby attached to Appendix E.2
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee may accept as correct the facts alleged against the Member in that allegation solely for the purposes of this proceeding (the "Uncontested Facts").
The Member hereby agrees that the Discipline Committee may consider that the aforementioned Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations by the College against her, specifically breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
The Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against her;
(b) she understands that, by signing this document, she agrees to the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee and that the Discipline Committee may consider them as correct for the purposes of the proceedings;
(c) she enters a plea of no contest to the findings requested by the College to the effect that these Uncontested Facts and facts alleged stated constitute professional misconduct as described in this document and she accepted that the Discipline Committee may draw this conclusion without holding a hearing;
(d) she understands that, by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(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, will be published in Pour parler profession/Professionally Speaking, the official publication of the College;
(f) she understands that any agreement between her and the College with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee; and
(g) she understands 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 and of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Act, 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 aforementioned Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee should find that the Member’s actions constitute professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. Counsel for the College stated that permission was sought from the Panel to withdraw allegation 1(14) because it duplicates allegation 1(5) and this withdrawal is part of the agreement that was negotiated between the opposing parties. The Panel granted the request.
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on June 22, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.
9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member fell below the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted that the decision of the Divisional Court in Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508, established that the College should generally present expert evidence on the standards of the profession, unless the conduct is so notorious and so manifestly contrary to the standards (such as physical abuse) that expert evidence is not required. In this case, the Panel accepts the submissions by College Counsel that using physical force against a student and making threatening and vulgar comments in the presence of students regarding the behaviour of a student (“I’m gonna kill him” and/or “I’m going to fuckin’ kill him”) clearly demonstrates that the Member fell below professional standards. The Panel also relied on the fact that the Member is not contesting the fact that these facts constitute a failure to maintain the standards of the profession.
10The Member abused a student verbally, contrary to paragraph 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Instead of following professional classroom management methods, the Member became angry and often had fits of anger directed at her students. In particular, she yelled at Student 2, sometimes in his face; she yelled after Student 3 hurt himself (“What are you trying to do? Kill yourself?”); and she expressed her anger at Student 1 in the presence of students (“I’m gonna kill him” and/or “I’m going to fuckin’ kill him”). Yelling at young students and communicating in a threatening and vulgar manner is completely inappropriate and constitutes verbal abuse.
11The Member abused a student physically, contrary to paragraph 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 when she grabbed Student 2 by the collar of his shirt and pulled him onto the stage during a [XXX]. The unnecessary use of physical force against students is prohibited. Members of the profession are expected to provide students with a safe learning environment and to use appropriate disciplinary measures at all times.
12The Member abused several students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to paragraph 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Among other things, she often yelled at Student 2 and made him cry in class about once a week. College Counsel claimed that the Member’s conduct, as described above, caused many students to become anxious and afraid to ask questions in class (Appendix C, page 14). Furthermore, the Children’s Aid Society verified the risk of emotional harm to the children who were fearful and anxious due to the Member’s conduct in class (Appendix D, page 19). The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submissions and concludes that the Member’s actions with her students therefore created a classroom environment that was not conducive to learning and that did not foster students’ psychological or emotional well-being.
13The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Among other things, under this provision, teachers are required to be a role model for students, which the Member did not do in several circumstances. During one incident, she made inappropriate comments that led students to wonder: “who is she going to kill?” Students’ feedback on these comments demonstrates that the Member was not a role model for students and that her conduct had a significant impact on them.
14The Member 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). The Panel finds that the Member’s impulsive conduct, including the use of unnecessary physical force and inappropriate verbal interventions towards students, are acts that call into question her moral aptitude. These acts also demonstrate the Member’s lack of professional judgment, contrary to the duties of the profession.
15Also, the Member’s aforementioned conduct is unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19), in that it undermines the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY DECISION
16The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 22, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of three (3) months, as of the 15th calendar day following the oral decision 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 of the Discipline Committee is rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will commence on September 1.
The Committee directs the Registrar to impose upon the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration the following conditions or restrictions that will be recorded on the Register:
(a) Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete, at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar focusing on anger management and respect for boundaries, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide a course practitioner approved by the Registrar with a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) following 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 course goals;
(b) Within thirty (30) days of her completion of the course outlined in paragraph (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner stating that:
(i) 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
17The 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 likely 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 specifically on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Coulombe, 2019 ONOCT 78, Ontario College of Teachers v. Gulamhusein, 2019 ONOCT 101 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Thompson, 2020 ONOCT 133.
18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases noted above. In this case, aggravating factors include the Member’s aggressive conduct and inappropriate classroom management that occurred repeatedly and that involved several students. Despite a disciplinary letter issued to her in March 2017 with respect to her conduct on February 2017, the Member did not take the necessary measures to improve her deficiencies. She continued to yell regularly and behaved aggressively towards her students. She received a second disciplinary letter in April 2017. In this second letter, the Member admitted that she knew “about students’ fear and of their perception of being “yelled at in their face…for some time now” and that “various school principals” have “expressly warned her, on several occasions, not to yell and to use an acceptable tone of voice” (Appendix C, page 15). In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her professional misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Furthermore, she was not subject to disciplinary measures before a panel of the College’s Discipline Committee. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
19The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. The Panel expects members, in the exercise of their profession, to express their commitment to students’ well-being and to avoid yelling, using inappropriate language or having physical contact with them. For this purpose, members must ensure at all times a safe school environment that supports student learning. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns to the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register is important, because it will also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
20Given the seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct in some ways from this matter, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is similar and confirms that a suspension of the Member’s certificate is warranted. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making it clear that such professional misconduct is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Member’s suspension will commence on September 1, 2021.
21The Panel considers that the course on anger management and respecting boundaries will help the Member in her rehabilitation process. It will remind her of her obligations as a teacher and help her to make better decisions in her interactions with students.
22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
June 24, 2021
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Myrna Tulandi Member, Discipline Panel