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 Edward Willoughby Culp, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
EDWARD WILLOUGHBY CULP (REGISTRATION #112064)
PANEL: Stéphane Vallée, OCT, Chair Lois Figg Azeem Khan
HEARD: August 11, 2021
Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Angela Zhu, for Edward Willoughby Culp 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 August 11, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Edward Willoughby Culp (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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 May 21, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Edward Willoughby Culp 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) he 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) 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);
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Edward Willoughby Culp 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 an Occasional Teacher.
Conduct at [XXX] Institute
The Member was assigned to [XXX] Institute in Scarborough, Ontario [XXX] on March 29, 2010.
While assigned to [XXX], the Member failed to adequately supervise students in his Period [XXX] class by falling asleep on several occasions. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the principal’s letter to the Member dated April 26, 2010.
Conduct at [XXX] Institute
The Member was assigned to [XXX] Institute in Etobicoke, Ontario [XXX] on December 19, 2011.
While assigned to [XXX], the Member distributed an assignment which required students to take turns reading aloud from a [XXX] book. One student was experiencing some difficulty reading the book and his classmates began making fun of him and laughing. Rather than addressing this misbehaviour as he ought to have done, the Member responded by suggesting that the student who was having difficulty reading the book had a learning disability, which he did not. Many students were offended by this remark.
Later on in class, a female student asked the Member to write something on the board for clarification. Rather than addressing the student’s question in a respectful manner, the Member told the student with a raised voice that her question was ridiculous and that her mark would be reduced. The Member’s comment was made in front of the class and was upsetting to the student. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the principal’s letter of discipline dated February 7, 2012 to the Member.
Conduct at [XXX] School
The Member was assigned to a [XXX] class at [XXX] school in East York, Ontario [XXX] on November 26, 2014.
While assigned to [XXX], the Member accompanied his Period [XXX] class to the school auditorium for an assembly which featured a guest speaker. When the assembly had finished, there were approximately ten minutes left before the end of the period. Rather than escorting the students under his care back to their classroom to ensure that they were properly supervised, the Member went to the main office to meet with the guest speaker. The Member’s assigned class was left without adequate supervision and many students did not return to the classroom.
Later that afternoon, the Member made a comment to an Educational Assistant. The Member said words to the effect that another school was “…such a great school except for the chinks”. The comment was made within the hearing of students in the Member’s class. Attached as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the vice-principal’s letter of reprimand dated March 2, 2015 addressed to the Member.
Conduct at [XXX] Institute
The Member was assigned to [XXX] Institute in Toronto, Ontario [XXX] on December 19 and 20, 2017.
While assigned to [XXX], the Member failed to adequately supervise students on two separate occasions described below.
(a) On December 19, 2017, the Member fell asleep in class for approximately five minutes and did not wake up until a textbook was dropped on the floor;
(b) On December 20, 2017, the Member was captured on video surveillance camera leaving his assigned class approximately seven minutes early.
The Member was issued a letter of reprimand from the Board dated February 21, 2018. He was suspended for 5 days and required to complete professional development in the area of classroom management. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member.
The Member completed an individual session on Effective Practices for Classroom Management for Teachers on April 16, 2018 through the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (“OSSTF”). Attached hereto as Exhibit “F” is a copy of a letter from the OSSTF confirming same, dated April 16, 2018.
Retirement
- The Member has since retired from the Board. He is 80 years-old and does not intend to return to teaching.
Prior History
- The Member had received a number of corrective directions and/or discipline from the Board. Excluding the incidents described above, concerns regarding the Member’s behaviour in the classroom were raised and addressed with the Member in 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2010. Attached hereto as Exhibits “G”, “H”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L”, “M”, “N”, “O”, and “P” are various letters, including letters of reprimand, that the Member received from Board employees and school administrators between January 1998 and June 2010.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).
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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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 Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, 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 allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought as proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. The Panel granted the request.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on August 11, 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(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 16 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member repeatedly failed to adequately supervise students and made inappropriate comments at school.
9The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused students, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. While on assignment at [XXX], the Member suggested that a student who was having difficulty reading a book had a learning disability, which he did not. The Member’s comment offended many students in the class. Furthermore, after a student asked the Member to clarify something on the board, the Member responded, with a raised voice and in front of the class, that her question was ridiculous and that her marks would be reduced. The Member’s comment was upsetting to the student. During a different teaching assignment at [XXX], the Member made a derogatory comment about “chinks” to an Educational Assistant, when he was within the hearing distance of students in his class. The Panel finds that the Member’s comments were offensive and inappropriate, and amount to verbal abuse by the Member. Teachers must model respectful and culturally sensitive behaviour in their professional practice, which the Member failed to do in this case.
10The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s inappropriate remarks to students in front of class, as described above, made students feel offended and upset. For instance, rather than addressing the misbehaviour of students who were making fun of and laughing at a student who had trouble reading, the Member contributed to the reader’s embarrassment by suggesting that he had a learning disability, which he did not. The Member also needlessly criticized a student who asked a clarification question in class. This disrespectful and demeaning behaviour constitutes psychological or emotional abuse. Teachers are expected to support student learning and development – not to put them down.
11The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. On multiple occasions, the Member fell asleep in class when he should have been supervising students. Furthermore, while on a teaching assignment at [XXX] in 2014, the Member failed to escort his students back to class after an assembly and many students did not return to the classroom. In addition, while on assignment at [XXX] on December 20, 2017, the Member was captured on video surveillance camera leaving his assigned class approximately seven minutes early. The Panel therefore finds that the Member failed to adequately supervise students, in violation of this subsection. The Member’s repeated inadequate supervision of his students put their safety at risk.
12The 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 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 “Leadership in Learning Communities” requires members to promote and participate in the creation of safe and supportive learning communities. The Member made inappropriate comments in class, which caused emotional harm to students. He also inadequately supervised students, which put their safety at risk. By doing so, the Member disregarded his students’ well-being and he failed to foster a safe and supportive learning environment for his students. Furthermore, the ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to model respect for cultural values and social justice, among other things. The Member’s culturally insensitive comment about “chinks”, which he made within earshot of his students, demonstrated a lack of respect for cultural diversity and inclusion. The Member’s conduct, therefore fell below the standards of the profession.
13The 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. Section 264(1)(b) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. Instead of providing support to students who were having difficulty reading or asking clarification questions, the Member embarrassed and ridiculed them in class. As such, the Panel finds that the Member discouraged students from learning. Moreover, section 264(1)(e) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to maintain proper order and discipline in the teacher’s classroom and while on duty in the school. The Member repeatedly failed to meet this professional obligation by leaving his students unsupervised and by not addressing the misbehaviour of students who were making fun and laughing at a student who was having difficulty reading a book.
14The Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member made a racist comment about “chinks” at school. Although it was a single remark, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct nevertheless rises to the level of disgraceful and dishonourable. Disgraceful and dishonourable conduct includes conduct which is immoral. It is unacceptable for teachers, who are expected to be upstanding members of the community, to make comments which are culturally insensitive and demonstrate a lack of inclusivity. Unprofessional conduct includes conduct that demonstrates a disregard for a member’s professional obligations and poor professional judgment. The Member demonstrated a serious lack of professional judgment by repeatedly failing to adequately supervise students and by making discouraging remarks to students.
15Finally, the Member’s conduct, as described above, is also unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members who discourage students in front of their peers and who repeatedly leave students unsupervised undermine the reputation of the teaching profession and violate the trust that parents, students and the public place in them.
F. PENALTY DECISION
16The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on August 11, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand, 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 Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;
The Registrar is directed to the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to commencing or returning to teaching or any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding maintaining appropriate boundaries, classroom management, and cultural sensitivity, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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 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
17The 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. Coulombe, 2019 ONOCT 88, Ontario College of Teachers v. Nolis, 2019 ONOCT 123, Ontario College of Teachers v. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48, Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79, Ontario College of Teachers v. Chong Yen, 2019 ONOCT 28 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Foster, 2013 ONOCT 23.
18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are many aggravating factors in this case. First, the Member’s misconduct formed part of a concerning pattern of behaviour; it was not an isolated incident. Second, the Member’s misconduct involved many students. Third, the Member’s misconduct put students’ safety at risk. Fourth, the Member’s misconduct caused emotional harm to several students. Fifth, the Member’s misconduct spanned over several years and occurred at different schools. Finally, the Member has received several prior corrective directions and discipline from the Board regarding his behaviour in the classroom. There are also several mitigating factors in this case. First, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Second, the Member’s admission saved students from having to testify. Finally, the Member has not been the subject of College discipline in the past. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
19The Panel finds that the Member’s discouraging remarks made to students, his inadequate supervision of students, and his racist comment, despite prior warnings from the Board, warrant a reprimand. Teachers must always maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and model cultural sensitivity. They must also prioritize students’ safety by appropriately supervising students. 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.
20Given the repeated 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, should he ever return to teaching, 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 26, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
21The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding maintaining appropriate boundaries, classroom management, and cultural sensitivity will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, should he ever return 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 and in his professional practice.
22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: August 16, 2021
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Lois Figg Member, Discipline Panel
Azeem Khan Member, Discipline Panel