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 Jennifer Carolyn Allen, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS – and – JENNIFER CAROLYN ALLEN (REGISTRATION #425669)
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Jennifer McMaster, OCT Kimberley Westfall-Connor
HEARD: July 8, 2021
COUNSEL: Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Lauren Sheffield, for Jennifer Carolyn Allen 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 July 8, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Jennifer Carolyn Allen (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 March 23, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Jennifer Carolyn Allen is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(b) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(c) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(d) 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);
(e) 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);1
(f) 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:
Jennifer Carolyn Allen is a 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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
During the 2018-2019 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student in the Member’s class at the School.
On or about October 11, 2018, Student 1 was misbehaving and the Member sent him to sit at the back of the class. When Student 1 continued to be disruptive, the Member approached him quickly and took hold of his chair with one hand and his shoulder with the other. This resulted in Student 1 falling off the chair. The Member was angry and put her face up close to Student 1’s face. If the Member were to testify, she would say that she does not recall this incident, but acknowledges that she may have had physical contact with Student 1.
It is the Member’s position that it was not her intention to harm Student 1 with any physical contact that occurred. The Member nevertheless understands and acknowledges the need to avoid using physical contact with students.
Between September 1 and October 11, 2018, the Member raised her voice in anger at students in her class. Students in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class reported this to be a regular occurrence.
The Member acknowledges that she ought not to have raised her voice at any student in her class and understands the need to avoid such conduct in the course of her role as a teacher.
The Children’s Aid Society and the police were contacted by the School’s administration regarding the above incident. They both, respectively, determined that the matter did not meet their criteria for investigation.
As a result of the above incidents, the Member was disciplined by the Board.
The Member has continued to be employed by the Board since October 2018 without further incident.
Prior History
In January 2016, the Member engaged in inappropriate physical contact and inappropriate communication with a female student. In January 2018, the Member received an oral admonishment from the College with respect to this incident.
In May 2016, the Member again engaged in inappropriate communication and inappropriate physical contact by hitting a male student in Grade [XXX]. The matter was referred to the Discipline Committee and, in October 2019, by way of agreement, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a one month suspension and anger management coursework. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Decision of the Discipline Committee dated October 17, 2019.
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 the paragraphs 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(14), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only], 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 Discipline 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 her and counsel for the College 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 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
6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on July 8, 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(14), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 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 made physical contact with Student 1 and raised her voice at students.
8The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused students by regularly raising her voice in anger at them in class, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It is inappropriate for teachers to lose their self-control and raise their voice at students in class. Members of the teaching profession must always remain composed and professional in their dealings with students, which the Member failed to do in this case. As such, the Member’s conduct amounts to verbal abuse.
9The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Student 1 was being disruptive in class and misbehaving. The Member approached him and placed her hand on his shoulder and took hold of his chair with the other hand, causing the student to fall off his chair. She also became angry and put her face up close to him. The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that this was an act of aggression. Although the Member does not recall this incident, she has acknowledged that she may have had physical contact with Student 1. The Panel finds that the Member’s unnecessary physical contact with Student 1 constitutes physical abuse. In making this determination, the Panel also placed significant weight on the fact that the Member has pleaded no contest to the allegation of physical abuse of a student. Teachers must use appropriate discipline methods and avoid resorting to physical contact with students, when addressing student misbehaviour.
10The 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 ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect” and the standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities”. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate a commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment, and empathy in practice. The standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. The standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities” requires members to promote and participate in the collaboration of safe and supportive learning communities. By physically abusing Student 1 and by regularly raising her voice in anger at students, the Member disregarded her students’ well-being and was disrespectful towards her students. Engaging in physically abusive, angry and disrespectful behaviour creates a fearful atmosphere and is incompatible with the expectation that teachers will promote a safe and supportive learning environment. As such, the Member’s conduct falls below the professional and ethical standards of the teaching profession.
11The Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(b) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. Section 264(1)(c) requires teachers to demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues, and it is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models for students. The Member’s angry behaviour in the classroom and unnecessary physical contact with Student 1, detracted from her students’ formative education. The Panel notes that the Member’s students were in Grade [XXX] and at this age, students are still learning to manage their emotions. By displaying such conduct in class, the Member failed to model respectful behaviour and restraint for her students. The Member, therefore, failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.
12The Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Unprofessional conduct includes conduct that demonstrates a disregard for a member’s professional obligations and a failure to demonstrate sound professional judgment. The Member demonstrated a lack of professional judgment by regularly losing her composure in class and raising her voice at students. The Member also used physical contact with Student 1 instead of more appropriate classroom management methods. Such unprofessional behaviour has no place in the classroom. Members of the teaching profession are expected to keep their calm and behave professionally with students, even when faced with challenging student behaviour. The Member fell short of these expectations. The Panel accepted the parties’ joint submission that the subsection 1(18) finding should be limited to unprofessional conduct only. The Panel does not find that the Member’s conduct was disgraceful or dishonourable as there was no element of moral failing or deceit by the Member in this case.
13The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct, as described above, was unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members who engage in aggressive and physically abusive behaviour towards students undermine the reputation of the teaching profession and violate the trust that parents, students, and the public place in teachers.
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 July 8, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
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 by videoconference and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Oral Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to returning to teaching, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar to address professional boundary violations and classroom management issues, 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) 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 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 coursework.
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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Black, 2020 ONOCT 152, Ontario College of Teachers v. Hunt, 2020 ONOCT 212, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Thompson, 2020 ONOCT 133.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is the fact that she engaged in similar conduct involving inappropriate physical contact and inappropriate communications with students three times in a row and failed to improve her behaviour even after having been previously admonished by the College for similar behaviour. 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 is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that the Member’s physically and verbally abusive conduct towards students, despite prior warnings from the College, warrants a reprimand by the Panel. Members are expected to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for students. They must also remain composed and professional when managing challenging student behaviour. 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 four-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 July 23, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
19The Panel finds that the course of instruction to address professional boundary violations and classroom management issues will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: July 10, 2021
Irene Dembek, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Jennifer McMaster, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Kimberley Westfall-Connor Member, Discipline Panel