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
Michaëlle Chéron, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MICHAËLLE CHÉRON (REGISTRATION #250911)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Jacqueline Boulianne, OCT Yasser Leheta, OCT
HEARD: June 25, 2021
Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Lise Leduc, for Michaëlle Chéron 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, the proceeding was held electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on June 25, 2021 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Michaëlle Chéron (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 November 18, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Michaëlle Chéron 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1)1;
(c) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) she failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(e) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, and specifically section 32 of the bylaws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14)2;
(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 Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Michaëlle Chéron is a retired member of the College. Attached hereto and marked as 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 des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est as a short term occasional teacher.
During the period in question, Student 1 was a [XXX] student at [XXX] in Nepean, Ontario. During the period in question, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] student at [XXX]in Ottawa, Ontario.
Incident of May 11, 2016
On or about May 11, 2016, the Member was assigned to [XXX] in Ottawa, Ontario. She was teaching a Grade [XXX] class.
The Member was in the classroom when one of the bells rang. The students put their lunch boxes away and sat in their seats waiting for instructions. The Member left the classroom because she believed she still had 10 minutes before the beginning of her lesson, leaving the Grade [XXX] students unsupervised for about 10 minutes.
On June 22, 2016, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a one-day suspension in connection with that incident. A copy of the letter from the principal of [XXX] to the Member, dated June 22, 2016, is attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B”.
Incident of June 16, 2016
On or about June 16, 2016, the Member was assigned to [XXX]. The Member was teaching a Grade [XXX] class.
At the end of the day, the Member kept all the students after the bell. The Member was waiting for complete silence before taking the students to the bus. As a result, around 15 students missed their bus. The school had to contact the bus company to ask if the buses could come back. Three of the buses were able to turn around and come back for some students. In total, 13 students were able to take the bus back home and two had to wait for their parents to come. The incident had an adverse effect on the students involved.
On October 21, 2016, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a three-day suspension. A copy of the letter from the principal of [XXX] to the Member, dated October 21, 2016, is attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C”.
Incident of September 27, 2016
On or about September 27, 2016, the Member was assigned to [XXX]. She was teaching a [XXX] class.
At the end of the day, the Member accompanied the students to the bus. She advised the vice-principal that Student 1 was missing. Members of the teaching staff looked for the child on the buses and on school premises, without success. The secretaries tried to phone Student 1’s mother to find out if her child was with her. After a few minutes, they reached the mother and she confirmed that Student 1 was with her. The mother said that the Member had handed Student 1 over to her near the buses.
The Member was present when the staff was looking for the student and the secretaries were trying to reach the mother. When the secretary advised the Member of her call with the mother, the Member recalled that she had left Student 1 with her mother.
On December 5, 2016, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a five-day suspension. A copy of the letter from the principal of [XXX] to the Member, dated December 5, 2016, is attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D”.
Incident of June 12, 2017
On or about June 12, 2017, the Member was assigned to [XXX] in Ottawa, Ontario. She was teaching a Grade [XXX] class.
The students in the Member’s class were required to give oral presentations. While all the students were on the carpet, Student 2 was looking for her presentation. The Member stationed herself behind Student 2 and yelled at her that she was not ready and was taking too much time. This incident had a negative impact on Student 2.
The Board carried out an investigation and a report was made to the Children’s Aid Society ("CAS"). The CAS did not confirm allegations of physical force against Student 2. A copy of the letter from the CAS dated June 29, 2017 is attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E”.
Following the investigation by the Board, on August 28, 2017 the Board withdrew the Member’s name from the list of occasional teachers. A copy of the letter from the Board to the Member, dated August 28, 2017, is attached hereto and marked as Appendix “F”.
Previous disciplinary measures
Between June 2000 and April 2016, on more than one occasion, the Member received written notices from the Board expressing its concerns about the Member’s inadequate classroom management and student supervision.
On April 18, 2019, the Member retired from the College.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts referred to above (the "Uncontested Facts").
The Member acknowledges that the aforementioned 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(5), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document, 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 consents to the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee, and agrees that the Committee can accept the facts as correct for the purposes of this proceeding;
(c) she is pleading no contest to the finding by the College that the Uncontested Facts and allegations constitute professional misconduct as described in this document, and agrees that the Discipline Committee may make this finding without 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 by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving her right to introduce any evidence pertaining to the College’s finding;
(f) she does not intend to introduce any evidence pertaining to the order that the Discipline Committee ought to make that is consistent with the facts and findings by the Discipline Committee based on this plea of no contest;
(g) 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 Pour parler profession/Professionally Speaking, the official publication of the College;
(h) she understands that any agreement between the College and herself with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(i) 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 find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs (b) and (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.1) and 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. Counsel for the College stated that permission was being sought from the Panel to withdraw allegation 1(7.1) because of insufficient evidence and the agreement between the parties, and to withdraw allegation 1(14) because it duplicated allegation 1(5). The Panel granted the 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 June 25, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(11), 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 19 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 failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted that the decision by 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 and breaches thereof, unless the conduct is so notorious or obvious that expert evidence is not required. The Panel accepts the submission of College Counsel that expert evidence is not required in this case, given that the Member failed to ensure students’ safety on several occasions, which is a basic professional standard. Teachers must always be responsible for students’ safety. The Member left young students unsupervised, forgot that she had handed a student over to her parent and delayed the students’ departure, causing them to miss their bus. As a result, the Board disciplined the Member several times concerning her poor professional judgment in the matter of student supervision (Exhibit 2 in Appendices B, C and D). The Panel also took into account the fact that the Member pled no contest to failing to maintain the standards of the profession.
10The Member abused several students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). First, the Member yelled at a Grade [XXX] student (Student 2) in front of her peers while she was looking for her presentation. Second, the Member delayed the students’ departure, causing them to miss their bus. These two incidents adversely affected the students. The Panel concluded that the Member’s classroom management techniques therefore created an environment that was not conducive to students’ psychological or emotional well-being, a fact that the Member is not contesting.
11The Member failed to supervise adequately a person placed under her professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11). While working at [XXX], the Member left the classroom, leaving her Grade [XXX] students alone for approximately 10 minutes after the start of their class. Later, at [XXX], she did not realize that a young student had left with her mother at the end of the school day, which prompted the administration to look for the student because she was presumed lost. These incidents jeopardized the safety of the young students under the Member’s professional supervision.
12The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). In particular, clause 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, which the Member failed to do when she delayed young students’ departure from the classroom. They missed their bus and the administration had to call the buses back to the school to pick up around 15 students. Some of them had to be picked up by their parents. The Member mishandled the departure from the classroom, upsetting the students. The interests of her students were not her priority and her conduct in front of her students was irresponsible. It is reasonable to presume that such conduct would be upsetting to the students and could create a distressing situation for parents and the school administration. The Member’s actions were contrary to the duties of a teacher.
13The 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 the Member managed her class poorly, failed to adequately supervise the students, yelled at a young student and criticized her in front of her peers. These actions demonstrate a lack of professional judgment on her part, contrary to the duties of the profession.
14Similarly, the Member’s conduct as described above 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
15The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 25, 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 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 Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) Prior to resuming a teaching position or any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense, a course pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, and 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;
(iii) the Member shall complete this course no more than 12 months prior to the date on which she is to resume a teaching position, should she do so.
(b) Within 30 days of her 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
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. 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. Nolis, 2019 ONOCT 129, Ontario College of Teachers v. Coulombe, 2019 ONOCT 88 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Tadontsop, 2020 ONOCT 190.
17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the Member’s inappropriate classroom management occurred in three different schools between May 2016 and June 2017 and involved several students. Furthermore, despite written notices from her Board between June 2000 and April 2016 regarding her classroom management and inadequate student supervision, the Member failed to take the necessary steps to improve. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her professional misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Furthermore, she has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
18The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. Members of the profession must ensure at all times a safe school environment with adequate supervision and must use professional classroom management techniques. 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.
19Given 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 case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature 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 clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Member’s suspension will commence on September 1, 2021.
20The Panel considers that the course on classroom management to be completed before returning to teaching will assist in the Member’s rehabilitation. It will remind her of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in her interactions with students.
21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
July 2, 2021
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Jacqueline Boulianne, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Yasser Leheta, OCT Member, Discipline Panel