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 Simona Mihaela Opris, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
SIMONA MIHAELA OPRIS (REGISTRATION #459749)
PANEL: Wanda Percival, Chair Gary Pieters, OCT Jonathan Rose
HEARD: August 12, 2021
COUNSEL: Noam Uri and Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Angela Zhu, for Simona Mihaela Opris Renée Kopp, 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 12, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Simona Mihaela Opris (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 13, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Simona Mihaela Opris is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);1
(b) she signed or issued, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(c) she falsified a record relating to the member’s professional responsibilities, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(13);2
(d) she 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);
(e) 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);
(f) 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
(g) she 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:
Simona Mihaela Opris 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] (the “School”).
At all material times, Student 1 was a female student in the Member’s grade [XXX] Class.
On or about March 15, 2018, Student 1 had a [XXX] Written Assignment due in the [XXX]. The assignment had to be submitted to the Member by March 15, 2018, during March break. The Member was responsible for uploading the final paper to the [XXX].
The guidelines for the assignment published by the [XXX] required that the assignment “must be in the target language and word processed.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the [XXX] Guide. However, if a student’s assignment was handwritten it could be scanned and submitted to the [XXX] examiner to assess and make the final decision as to whether the assignment would be acceptable in handwritten form.
The Member was permitted to provide oral feedback to students on their assignment. However the Member was not permitted to modify or profoundly change the character of the student assignment.
Student 1 handed in her final rough draft, handwritten, prior to March break (the “original work”). Student 1 hand delivered the handwritten copy to the Member in class. Student 1 was supposed to type up the assignment and send it to the Member on the weekend. However, Student 1 did not type up the assignment or submit a clean word-processed copy to the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of Student 1’s original work.
As the assignment deadline approached over the course of the March Break, the Member tried to reach Student 1 to finalize the assignment. The Member repeatedly urged Student 1 to type up her assignment, update it in a Google Document, and submit it to the Member for uploading. Student 1 was undergoing personal difficulty and was not responsive to the Member.
Prior to uploading Student 1’s assignment to [XXX], the Member:
(a) typed up Student 1’s assignment;
(b) omitted two draft “outlines” written in English and an incomplete diary entry written in [XXX] that were contained in the body of the Student 1’s original work; this omission comprised about one-third of Student 1’s original work;
(c) made a few corrections or changes to words in Student 1’s assignment, which did not represent a substantial improvement or change to Student 1’s original work;
(d) added a “signature” of the fictional character referenced in the assignment, even though it was not a requirement for the assignment;
(e) added a word count to the assignment, even though it was not a requirement for the assignment; and
(f) added a bibliography to the assignment, even though it was not a requirement for the assignment.
The Member uploaded the word-processed assignment to [XXX], which included the changes described in paragraph 9 above, on or about March 15, 2018, as Student 1’s final work. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the word-processed uploaded assignment.
The Member indicated to the Board that the purpose of word-processing Student 1’s assignment and making the changes described in paragraph 9 was “for Student 1 to succeed” and because Student 1 “needed accommodations”. The Member also indicated to the Board that, based on Student 1’s capability, Student 1 “deserves a [XXX] in [XXX]”. That is the highest mark awarded by the [XXX].
After the assignment was uploaded to [XXX], the Member informed Student 1 what she had done. Student 1 subsequently updated the Google Document by typing up her assignment. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the assignment from Google Document.
The Board conducted an investigation into the Member’s conduct. As a result of the Board’s investigation, the Member received a written reprimand and was suspended without pay for 5 days on June 4, 2018. This suspension is currently being grieved. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the letter from the Board to the Member dated June 1, 2018.
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 her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(12), 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty 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 Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain 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 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(13) 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. Similarly, in relation to the withdrawal of subsection 1(13), College Counsel submitted that proceeding under both subsections 1(13) and 1(12) would be duplicative. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on August 12, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(12), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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 engaged in academic dishonesty in relation to Student 1’s work in her [XXX] class.
9The Member breached subsection 1(12) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member typed and modified Student 1’s handwritten assignment for her [XXX] class and then uploaded and submitted it to the [XXX] as Student 1’s final work. As such the Panel finds that the Member inappropriately issued, in her professional capacity, a document that she knew or ought to have known contained an improper or misleading statement, in violation of this provision.
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 standard of “Integrity”, which provides that members are expected to conduct themselves with “honesty, reliability and moral action”. The Member did the opposite by changing Student 1’s original work and submitting the modified work as Student 1’s work. This dishonest conduct demonstrates a lack of integrity by the Member. As such the Member’s conduct fell below the ethical standards of the profession.
11The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(c) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example […] the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.” Simply put, teachers must behave with integrity and serve as positive role models within their school communities. Despite the Member’s stated intention to help Student 1 succeed, whom she thought deserved a high mark and needed accommodations, the Member showed a lack of professional judgment and acted as a poor role model to the student by altering and submitting her assignment for her.
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. Through her academic dishonesty, the Member gave Student 1 an unfair advantage over other students in the [XXX] and she served as a poor role model. Her conduct called into question her professional judgment.
13The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct as described above, is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members who engage in academically dishonest behaviour 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 August 12, 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 shall 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 months commencing on the next 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 1st and August 1st, the suspension will commence on September 1st;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) within 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 professional ethics, 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 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
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 College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. MacKellar, 2017 ONOCT 76, Ontario College of Teachers v. Allarde, 2019 ONOCT 65 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Jones, 2017 ONOCT 7.
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 behaved dishonestly. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and 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.
17The Panel finds that the Member’s dishonest and unprofessional conduct, warrants a reprimand. Teachers are expected to always behave with integrity and demonstrate sound professional judgment. 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 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 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 begins on August 13, 2021, which is the next calendar date after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics 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 her professional practice.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: August 18, 2021
Wanda Percival Chair, Discipline Panel
Gary Pieters, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Jonathan Rose Member, Discipline Panel