DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Gedies 2021 ONOCT 79

Date: 2021-07-21

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

Grant Gerhard Gedies, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

GRANT GERHARD GEDIES (REGISTRATION #438873)

PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair

Natasha Feghali, OCT

Anne Resnick

HEARD: July 21, 2021

Christine Wadsworth and Noam Uri, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Patricia D’Heureux, for Grant Gerhard Gedies

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.

2Grant Gerhard Gedies (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 August 5, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Grant Gerhard Gedies 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);

(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);²

(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, and specifically section 32 of 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);³

(h) he 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:

1. Grant Gerhard Gedies 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).

3. At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were female students in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class.

4. During the 2017-2018 academic year the Member told students in his Grade [XXX] class that the students he pairs together are or should become couples or boyfriend and girlfriend.

5. During the 2017-2018 academic year the Member made inappropriate comments to Student 1 including:

(a) “You probably ate it (jellybean) and the paper because of your weight”;

(b) “You eat so much at Mandarin that the people have to roll you out of there”; and

(c) “Why are you so late? Did you go to the Mandarin and have your lunch there?”.

(d) “Shookie”.

6. Student 1 was emotionally impacted by the Member’s comments. Student 1 felt sad as a result of the Member’s comments.

7. On one occasion Student 2 wore sweat pants that were a gift from her father. The Member told Student 2 that they were pajama pants.

8. On several occasions during the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member would put his legs out, which would cause students to trip. On another occasion, the Member stepped on a student’s foot.

Board Discipline

9. The Member received a letter of discipline dated March 22, 2018. The Board determined that the Member engaged in inappropriate communications and conduct towards students. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the letter from the Board to the Member dated March 22, 2018.

Prior College Discipline

10. The Member has a prior discipline history with the Ontario College of Teachers. The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Discipline Committee’s decision dated November 30, 2015.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

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

12. 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(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) unprofessional only and 1(19).

13. 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 Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) 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;

(f) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

14. 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.

15. 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 (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.1) 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 subsection 1(5) was being sought because it would be duplicative in this case to proceed under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14), and the College is seeking a finding under subsection 1(14) only. The Panel’s permission to withdraw subsection 1(7.1) was being sought as there was insufficient evidence to prove misconduct under this subsection. 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(7), 1(7.2), 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 10 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He 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 several inappropriate comments to his students, which emotionally impacted at least one student.

9The Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by making rude and inappropriate comments to young female students about their weight and clothing. Members should refrain from making comments that embarrass or demean students. Disrespectful comments about students’ weight have no place in the classroom. Comments such as “you probably ate it (jellybean) and the paper because of your weight”, and “you eat so much at Mandarin that the people have to roll you out of there” constitute verbal abuse of students.

10The Member abused a student emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member’s comments had an emotional impact on Student 1 and he has not contested that his comments to Student 1 constitute emotional abuse.

11The Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14), by breaching the standards articulated in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession set out at section 32.02 of the by-laws. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to express their commitment to students’ well-being by exercising professional judgment and empathy in practice. By making inappropriate comments about Student 1’s weight and Student 2’s clothing, and by sticking his legs out and causing students to trip, the Member compromised his student’s emotional and physical well-being. As such, his behaviour was contrary to the Ethical Standards.

12The 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. Subsection 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. By making inappropriate comments about his students’ appearance, the Member failed to demonstrate and instill the virtues in subsection 264(1)(c) and generally acted as a poor role model for all his students.

13The Member’s verbally abusive behaviour was unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member demonstrated poor professional judgment by making unnecessary and unprofessional comments to students about their weight and clothing. Members must refrain from making such comments and speak to students in a professional and composed manner.

14Additionally, the Member’s conduct, as described above, was unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. This conduct undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and violates the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.

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 July 21, 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 five (5) months commencing on the 15^th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;

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 commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (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 boundary and 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 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

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. Gray, 2017 ONOC 104, Ontario College of Teachers v. Fernandes, 2019 ONOC 13, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Turner, 2021 ONOCT 27.

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is that the Member has a history of making inappropriate comments to students, which led to a finding of professional misconduct by this Committee in 2015. The Member has also been warned by his Board in the past about making inappropriate comments to his students. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his 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.

18The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct, despite a prior finding of professional misconduct, warrants a reprimand from this Panel. Members are expected to serve as role models for students and not to engage in name-calling or making comments about young students’ appearance. 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 nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a five-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 five-month suspension is justified. Additionally, a five-month suspension is justified to reflect the aggravating factor in this case, namely that the Member has already been disciplined for similar misconduct. 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 August 5, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary and boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. If the Member returns to teaching, 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.

21The 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 narrowed to acts that would reasonably be regarded as unprofessional only at College Counsel’s request.