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
Cindy Ruth Warland, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CINDY RUTH WARLAND (REGISTRATION #446389)
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair
Natasha Feghali, OCT
Anne Resnick
HEARD: July 21, 2021
Noam Uri and Christine Wadsworth, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Patricia D’Heureux, for Cindy Ruth Warland
Erica Richler, 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 21, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Cindy Ruth Warland (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 December 4, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Cindy Ruth Warland is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);1
(b) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);2
(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);3
(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:
Cindy Ruth Warland 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 Upper Canada District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher and coach at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times Student 1 was a male student and Student 2 was a [XXX] year old male student at the School.
Between September 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018, the Member regularly hugged students when they won a tournament or a game. Some students described the Member’s behaviour as motherly and reported that it did not make them feel uncomfortable. Student 1 reported that he found the Member’s hugs comforting, but on one occasion he felt uncomfortable because he felt like she did not need to hug him at that time because he was trying to celebrate with his teammates.
Between September 1, 2015 and May 31, 2018, the Member:
(a) occasionally rubbed the shoulders of students such as to calm a student who was not feeling well;
(b) received texts from two students expressing [XXX], the Member notified the students’ parents, but failed to notify School administration that two students may have been [XXX] and
(c) occasionally communicated with students via text message using her personal cell phone, students would text her that they were late or not coming to practices.
Between September 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018, the Member permitted students to use her classroom unsupervised during non-instructional periods to watch the programme “Riverdale” on Netflix. The Member did not check the content rating prior to giving students permission to watch the show.
Between September 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018, the Member displayed favoritism towards male student athletes, including:
(a) referring to one or more students as “my boy” or “my boys”;
(b) on two occasions giving one or more students rides to and/or from extracurricular activities in her personal vehicle, despite the availability of bus transportation arranged by the School;
(c) during one of the occasions referred to at paragraph 7(b) above, stopping at a McDonald’s restaurant to allow two students to buy themselves food following a board [XXX];
(d) buying lunch for a student and/or students.
On or about May 24, 2018, the Member said to Student 2 during a [XXX] event, “Lets go baby, keep going baby,” or words to that effect.
On or about May 24, 2018, Student 2 had a headache, was dizzy and feeling sick after [XXX]. The Member rubbed the upper back and lower back of Student 2 to calm him down. Student 2 reported that this did not make him feel uncomfortable. This was done at a [XXX] in front of many parents and staff members.
On January 9, 2019, the Board issued the Member a letter of discipline. The Member received a two-day unpaid suspension, and was restricted from coaching or supervising School clubs until the end of the 2019-2020 academic year. The Board also imposed a boundaries course and a review of Board policies as well as College guidelines. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the letter discipline dated January 9, 2019.
On January 10, 2019, the Member confirmed completion of the review of the required documents. On February 2, 2019, the Board received a certificate of course completion entitled Professional Boundaries Course. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Certificate of Course Completion.
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 him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 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’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;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.1) and 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Panel find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegations was being sought as there was insufficient evidence to make out the allegations of subsections 1(7.1) and 1(7.2), and as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on July 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) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of boundary violations with a number of her students. The Member also displayed favouritism towards male student athletes.
9The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the bylaws. In particular, the Member failed to comply with section 32 of the bylaws, which outlines the Standards of Practice and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. The Ethical Standard of “Care” prescribes that Members express their commitment to students’ well-being through positive influence and professional judgment. The Member failed to comply with this standard by failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with her students. The Member rubbed a student’s shoulders, gave students hugs, gave rides to students in her personal vehicle, and communicated with students through text message using her personal phone. The Member’s overly familiar interactions with students displayed poor professional judgment and her differential treatment of students set a bad example, thus failing to comply with the ethical standards of the profession.
10The 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. Among other things, teachers are required to set a proper example for students and to exemplify the virtues set out in subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act. In displaying favouritism towards male student athletes by giving them rides in her car, buying them lunch, and calling them pet names such as “my boys”, the Member failed to set a good example for students. Her conduct was at odds with the virtues outlined in subsection 264(1)(c) and with her duties as a teacher.
11The Member’s conduct was unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with students on several occasions. The Member also failed to report to School administration that two students advised her of their [XXX]. This demonstrated the Member’s lack of professional judgment. Teachers hold a unique position of trust and authority, and they are required to behave professionally and to report any potential danger to students to the administration. The Member failed to meet these requirements.
12Additionally, the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Conduct that includes repeated violations of professional boundaries with students undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and violates the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.
F. PENALTY Decision
13The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on July 21, 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 two (2) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order 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) within ninety (90) days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations, 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 thirty (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
14The 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. Mahmood, 2019 ONOCT 29, Ontario College of Teachers v. Blew, 2018 ONOCT 7, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Dugan, 2019 ONOCT 90.
15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The Panel finds no aggravating factors in the Member’s case. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and 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.
16The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand from the Panel. Members are expected to serve as role models for students. They are also expected to maintain appropriate boundaries with students, and to manage their professional practice in accordance with the standards of practice of the profession. The Member failed to do so by her misconduct. 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.
17Given the nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a two-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 two-month suspension is within the appropriate range for the Member’s behaviour. 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.
18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and coach and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: July 25, 2021
Irene Dembek, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Natasha Feghali, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Anne Resnick Member, Discipline Panel