DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Lalonde 2021 ONOCT 78

Date: 2021-07-12

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

Jean-Aime Lalonde, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JEAN-AIME LALONDE (REGISTRATION #390485)

PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Lois Figg William Goldbloom

HEARD: July 5, 2021

Danielle Miller and Nicholas Fitz, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Patricia D’Heureux, for Jean-Aime Lalonde

Julie Maciura, 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 5, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Jean-Aime Lalonde (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.

3Three Notices of Hearing dated March 6, 2019, July 2, 2019 and January 18, 2021 were served on the Member specifying the allegations and requesting his presence on a date to be determined for the hearing. The hearing with respect to the allegations set out in the three Notices of Hearing was subsequently set for July 5, 2021. With the parties’ consent and in accordance with section 9.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, the Panel proceeded with one hearing with respect to all the allegations.

A. PUBLICATION ban

4The 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

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated March 6, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Jean-Aime Lalonde 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 abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);²

(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);³

(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(f) 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);

(g) 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);⁴

(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated July 2, 2019 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Jean-Aime Lalonde 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);⁵

(b) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);⁶

(d) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(e) 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);

(f) 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);⁷

(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

7The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated January 18, 2021 (Exhibit 3) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Jean-Aime Lalonde is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);⁸

(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);⁹

(c) he 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) 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);

(e) 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);¹⁰

(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

8College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 4), which provides the following:

1. Jean-Aime Lalonde is a retired 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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”).

3. During the 2014-2015 academic year, the Member was the Grade [XXX] teacher of a male student (“Student 1”) at [XXX] School [XXX] in Toronto, Ontario.

4. During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member was the Grade [XXX] teacher of a male student (“Student 2”) at [XXX]School [XXX] in Toronto, Ontario.

5. During the 2019-2020 academic year, the Member was a teacher of Grade [XXX] male student (“Student 3”) at [XXX]School in Toronto, Ontario.

Conduct at [XXX]

6. During the 2014-2015 academic year, the Member:

(a) initiated a behaviour monitoring or “character development” program for Student 1, without consultation with school administrators or Student 1's parents;

(b) met alone with Student 1 on multiple occasions after school to review Student 1’s behaviour;

(c) invited Student 1 to sit on the Member's knee in his office, and Student 1 did so approximately five or six times;

(d) Student 1’s parents advised that their son was upset and crying when he disclosed to them the conduct described at (a) – (c) above.

7. The Toronto Police Service and the Children’s Aid Society investigated the allegations and, after interviewing Student 1, found no basis to conclude any risk of sexual or other harm to children and no basis for criminal charges.

Board Discipline and Professional Boundaries Course

8. The Member was issued a letter of discipline, dated February 14, 2017, and was suspended for three days. He was also required to review relevant Board policies and procedures, as well as the Ontario College of Teachers’ Ethical Standards and Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member.

9. The Member completed a Professional Boundaries Course through his Federation on May 18, 2017. Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Member’s Certificate of Participation and Completion.

Conduct at [XXX]

10. On or about May 13, 2016, the Member:

(a) used his index and middle fingers to touch and turn Student 2's chin toward him;

(b) took hold of Student 2's elbow and/or arm to guide him to his seat.

Board Discipline and Classroom Management Course

11. The Member was issued a letter of discipline, dated October 24, 2016, which was subsequently revised on November 4, 2016. It required the Member to participate in a classroom management workshop and review relevant Board policies and procedures, as well as the Ontario College of Teachers’ Ethical Standards and Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. Attached as Exhibit “D’” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member.

12. The Member completed a Classroom Management Course through his Federation on November 22, 2016. Attached as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Member’s Certificate of Completion confirming same.

Conduct at [XXX]

13. On or about December 4, 2019, while Student 3 was sitting on a chair and tilting it forward on two legs, the Member made contact with the back of the chair to push the back legs down and Student 3 fell to the floor.

14. The Member retired from the Ontario College of Teachers effective May 29, 2021.

Prior History

15. The Member has a prior history of complaints at the College regarding his physical interactions with students resulting in the following decisions:

(a) Decision and Caution of the Investigation Committee, dated April 25, 2003;

(b) Decision of the Investigation Committee and Memorandum of Agreement, dated August 26, 2003;

(c) Decision and Admonishment of the Investigation Committee, dated January 23, 2018.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

16. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 [sic] above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

17. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts set out in paragraphs 6, 10 and 13, 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(7.1) [in relation to paragraph 10], 1(7.2) [in relation to paragraph 6], 1(14), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional only), and 1(19).

18. 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading no contest 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 Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

19. 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.

20. 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

9Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the Notice of Hearing dated March 6, 2019 (Exhibit 1), namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5), 1(7) and 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 (in relation to Student 1), be withdrawn. Second, College Counsel requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Notice of Hearing dated July 2, 2019 (Exhibit 2), namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 (in relation to Student 2), be withdrawn. Third, College Counsel requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the, Notice of Hearing dated January 18, 2021 (Exhibit 3), namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.1) and 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 (in relation to Student 3), be withdrawn. With respect to the subsection 1(18) allegations 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) in relation to all three Notices of Hearing.

10The Panel granted these requests and accepted the following submissions of College Counsel in support of the various withdrawals of these allegations:

• It is appropriate to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegations in relation to Student 1 and Student 2 because proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative.

• It is appropriate to withdraw the subsection 1(7) allegation in relation to Student 1, because the uncontested facts do not support a finding of verbal abuse.

• It is appropriate to withdraw the subsection 1(7.1) allegations in relation to Student 1 and Student 3 because the parties agreed that the Member’s conduct in relation to Student 1 is more accurately characterized as emotional or psychological abuse and the uncontested facts do not support a finding of physical abuse in relation to Student 3.

• It is appropriate to withdraw the subsection 1(7.2) allegation in relation to Student 2 and Student 3 because the uncontested facts do not support that psychological or emotional abuse occurred during the Member’s conduct with these two students.

11Having 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 5, 2021 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.1) [in relation to Student 2 only], 1(7.2) [in relation to Student 1 only], 1(14), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional only), and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

12The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him that were not withdrawn by the College. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.

13The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member abused Student 2 physically, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by taking hold of Student 2’s chin with his fingers to turn Student 2’s face toward him as well as by directing Student 2 to his seat by his elbow and/or arm. It is inappropriate for Members to use physical contact to redirect students or to place their hands on students to obtain their cooperation or compliance. Physical contact of this nature constitutes physical abuse of a student.

14The Member abused Student 1 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, when the Member had Student 1 who was then in Grade [XXX] meet him alone in his office after school for “character development”. The Member’s one-on-one meetings did not form part of the curriculum and were conducted by the Member without the authorization or knowledge of the School or Student 1’s parents. During these meetings, the Member invited Student 1 to sit on his knee approximately five or six times while he reviewed Student 1’s behaviour. When Student 1 disclosed to his parents what the Member was making him do, the parents reported that Student 1 was visibly upset and crying. The Panel accepts it as reasonable that an arbitrary behaviour monitoring program imposed on Student 1 by the Member would have an adverse psychological or emotional impact on the student.

15The Member failed to comply with the Act, regulations or by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Member failed to comply with section 32 of the College’s by-laws, which prescribes the Ethical Standards and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. The ethical standard of “care” expects members to “express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice”. The Member failed to demonstrate care during an incident with Student 3 who was tilting his chair forward on its front two legs. The Member approached Student 3 and pushed the student’s chair down from the back, which unbalanced him and caused him to fall to the floor. The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that there was no reason for the Member to use physical force, particularly when it would have been reasonably foreseeable that pushing the chair down from the back would unbalance the child and possibility cause him to hurt himself. The Panel therefore finds that the Member demonstrated a lack of care and empathy toward Student 3 when he sought Student 3’s compliance through physical means rather than attempting a verbal cue to Student 3 to put all four legs of his chair back on the floor. Further, the Member’s interactions with all three students, as described above, failed to foster “the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities” as articulated in the professional standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities”. In his interactions with Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3, the Member used poor classroom management strategies to address student behaviour. The Member’s conduct in all three instances demonstrates a lack of commitment to student well-being that falls below professional standards.

16The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among their duties, Members are expected to teach diligently and faithfully as described at subsection 264(1)(a) of the Education Act. The Member failed to perform these duties when he implemented an after-school behaviour monitoring program for a specific student in his Grade [XXX] class. It was not part of the Member’s teaching curriculum, and it was done without the administration’s knowledge or approval. Second, Members have a duty to encourage students in the pursuit of learning, as described at subsection 264(1)(b) of the Education Act. The Member’s interactions with Student 2 and Student 3 discouraged students’ learning by correcting their behaviour through unwarranted physical contact. Such physical contact is also a demeaning approach to teaching students. The Member’s inappropriate classroom management strategies therefore also modeled poor behaviour to his young students, in breach of subsection 264(1)(c) which requires that members act as positive role models for students. Fourth, Members are required to maintain proper order and discipline as described at subsection 264(1)(e) of the Education Act. To maintain proper order and discipline, members must not resort to physical contact with students or implement arbitrary behaviour programs with individual students as classroom management strategies.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to exercise good judgment in all their interactions with students. The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s conduct was contrary to the professional training received by members in this regard and failed to demonstrate the good judgment and responsibility expected of a teacher. The Member should have known better than to invite a Grade [XXX] student to meet with him alone in his office after school and to invite him to sit on his knee and expect the student to engage in an arbitrary character development program initiated by the Member. Similarly, as an experienced member of the teaching profession, the Member should have also known better than to physically redirect a student or push an unbalanced chair down, risking injury to a student. In all three instances, the Panel finds that the Member’s actions demonstrate a lack of professional judgment expected of a teacher.

18Finally, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Parents expect teachers to serve as positive role models when they entrust their children to their care and expect teachers to foster an encouraging learning environment. The Member’s conduct in relation to all three students fell below these expectations. When members resort to inappropriate physical interactions with students or cause students unnecessary emotional distress, it discredits the member as a teacher and undermines the public’s trust and confidence in the teaching profession as a whole.

F. PENALTY Decision

19The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 5), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on July 5, 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 by 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 four (4) months commencing on the 15^th^ 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;

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

(a) Prior to any return to a Teaching Position, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and professional boundaries with students, 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 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

20The 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. Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20, Ontario College of Teachers v. Hunt, 2020 ONOCT 212 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Dayfoot, 2018 ONOCT 73.

21The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member’s misconduct implicated students at three different schools and the nature of the Member’s misconduct led to emotional harm for Student 1. Though the Member’s physical contact with Student 2 was on the lower end of the spectrum of physical abuse, it forms part of a pattern of physical interactions with students despite prior warnings to the Member. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. Furthermore, the Uncontested Facts do not indicate that the Member’s physical interactions with Student 2 and Student 3 were aggressive or that they caused physical harm to students. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

22The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct, despite warnings from the College and the Board, warrants a reprimand. 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.

23Given 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 20, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

24The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management and professional boundaries with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students, should he return to a teaching position.

25The 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 College Counsel’s request.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
3. 3Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
4. 4Allegation narrowed to unprofessional acts only at the request of College Counsel.
5. 5Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
6. 6Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
7. 7Allegation narrowed to unprofessional acts only at the request of College Counsel.
8. 8Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
9. 9Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
10. 10Allegation narrowed to unprofessional acts only at the request of College Counsel.