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
Mark Stuart Clare Rigby, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MARK STUART CLARE RIGBY (REGISTRATION #515400)
PANEL: Wanda Percival, Chair
Gary Pieters, OCT
Jonathan Rose
HEARD: August 12, 2021
Nicholas Fitz and Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Mark Stuart Clare Rigby
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.
2Two Notices of Hearing dated May 8, 2019 (Exhibit 1) and May 13, 2019 (Exhibit 2) were served on the Member, specifying the allegations and requesting his presence on a date to be determined for the hearing. The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations of professional misconduct set out in both Notices of Hearing, in accordance with subsection 9.1(1)(a) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
3Mark Stuart Clare Rigby (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have 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
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 May 8, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Mark Stuart Clare Rigby 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);2
(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or 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);
(f) 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 May 13, 2019 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Mark Stuart Clare Rigby 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);3
(b) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(c) 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);
(d) 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);
(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 3), which provides the following:
- Mark Stuart Clare Rigby 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.
Employment with Thames Valley District School Board:
- From 2010 – 2017, the Member was employed by the Thames Valley District School Board.
[XXX] School:
During the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member was an elementary school teacher at [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario.
During September or October of the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member made generally inappropriate comments to parents and used an inappropriate tone of voice with them. The Member also had an inappropriate email exchange with parents.
The principal of [XXX] School planned to address these comments in a Program Development Team meeting with the Member. The principal shared the plan for the meeting with the Member and invited his input. The Member indicated that he knew the principal would not have wanted him to have conducted himself in this way with parents.
During the 2010-2011 academic year, Person 2 was a member of the public whose children attended [XXX] School while the Member was a teacher. Person 2 and the Member lived in the same town.
Student A was a male Grade [XXX] student at [XXX]School and the son of Person 2. At the beginning of the 2010-2011 academic year, Student A’s Grade [XXX] teacher left for maternity leave. A Long Term Occasional teacher was brought in and reported having difficulty with some of the students in the class. This resulted in Student A being transferred to the Member’s class.
On May 2, 2011, a meeting was held with the Member, the principal, and a representative of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (“ETFO”) at which the Member was cautioned regarding his inappropriate comments to students and parents. The Member was advised that if this continued, further action might be necessary.
On May 25, 2011, the administration of [XXX] School sent a letter drafted by the Member and other staff to parents and students that outlined the school’s expectations for the classroom. The letter included a portion for both students and parents to sign which indicated that they had read and understood these expectations.
In response to receiving this letter, Person 2 drafted a letter addressed to the principal that outlined her expectations of the administration and staff at [XXX] School as related to the school’s Code of Conduct. Person 2’s letter included a signature line for each staff member at the school. She indicated that she wanted each staff member to sign this letter prior to her signing the school’s letter. Person 2 requested that a copy of this letter be sent to each home in the school community.
When Person 2’s letter arrived at the school, the Principal’s assistant was reviewing it when the Member entered the office. The Member saw his name on the teacher signature page and took the letter from the Principal’s assistant. The Member then proceeded to contact Person 2 by phone and to discuss the letter’s contents without seeking administrative approval. The Member told Person 2 that he recorded his telephone conversation with Person 2. The Member alleged that Person 2 was threatening and said that he would provide his recording of their conversation to the police.
On June 22, 2011, a meeting was held between Member, the Principal, the superintendent of education and the Member’s ETFO representative. During this meeting, the Member advised that he had not in fact recorded the conversation with Person 2. The school administration noted that whether or not the recording had occurred, the Member’s interaction with Person 2 was unprofessional. The Member was further cautioned regarding his interactions with students and parents, as well as his activity on social media.
As a result of discussions with the Principal, the Member and Person 2 agreed to have no further direct contact or communication.
[XXX] School:
Beginning in the 2011-2012 academic year and continuing until the beginning of the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member was an elementary school teacher at [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario.
During the 2012-2013 academic year, Person 3 was the Principal at [XXX] School.
From the 2013-2014 academic year to the 2015-2016 academic year, Person 4 was the Principal at [XXX] School.
During the 2014-2015 academic year, Person 1 was a teacher at [XXX] School.
The Board operated an electronic communications system called FirstClass (“FirstClass”) which was intended to be used by teachers and administration for communication. Posts on FirstClass could be read by authorized users, including all staff at [XXX] School. During the 2012-2013 academic year, the Member posted inappropriate and unprofessional comments about Person 3 and other teachers at [XXX] School.
The Member posted the following comments on First Class:
(a) “Therefore, I can only assume that as a principal you choose not to allow us to have access on weekends if we require it to complete our duties as teachers. If my assumption is incorrect, please clarify”;
(b) “If it really doesn’t matter to you to park there, then why do you park there? Maybe we can have a monthly draw for that spot? I know I’d LOVE to have a designated spot close to the front door, but since I’m not Admin or a secretary I don’t”;
(c) “Seriously? Hi [Teacher] I know your hands are likely tied, but if I understand correctly you are saying there is a problem with my reading chairs in the hallway??? If I get cautionary signs and emergency lighting would that be ok???”;
(d) “My concerns ARE professional dialogue…I’m sorry it’s just not the professional dialogue you agree with or wish to read. Is posting for a pot-luck professional dialogue?”;
(e) “Can someone please explain why there are no keys for staff to sign out and use to gain entry? This is totally unacceptable. There is a rally in Queen’s Park tomorrow, and saying teachers must be out by 4 pm AND unable to get in the school on the only weekend they are able to is handcuffing teachers to decide to stand up for their rights as active citizens under attack by the government or get his classroom ready. This is ridiculous.”.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of these postings on FirstClass.
During the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member continued to misuse FirstClass by posting inappropriate comments. The Member used the FirstClass system to debate issues that were under the purview of the Principal, ignored warnings about inappropriate use, and misused his access to the system.
The Member posted on FirstClass about a staffing issue regarding gym classes and French instruction that was inappropriate for a public forum. Person 4 removed the postings, but the Member continued to repost the same messages despite being asked to stop. The Member’s inappropriate comments included stating: “it’s an important issue to be discussed. I’m not a dog, I don’t appreciate a legitimate issue being muzzled. I reposted it. If you remove it again, I will continue to repost it.”
The Member received two warnings for his behaviour on February 14, 2014 and March 3, 2014. The Member was eventually temporarily blocked from using FirstClass on April 10, 2014 for two days, until April 12, 2014. Despite being blocked from using FirstClass, the Member continued to email staff at [XXX] School postings related to the staffing issue, as well as advising staff that he had been banned from posting.
On April 4, 2014, the Member made negative comments on Facebook about the Education Quality and Accountability Office and advised parents:
(a) “you can have your children opt out by not having them write the test…(get it, and hand it back in blank). Stop this waste of time and money. It’s used more as a real estate, marketing and political tool rather than an educational tool. OPT out, get rid of it, and save 33 million $$ each year.”;
(b) “Ya…what happens is that the entire year ends up preparing and teaching to THAT test, rather than teaching more relevant information. [Name of Member’s son] wrote it last year, but we are opting our kids out from now on…complete joke.”.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of these Facebook posts.
- During the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member made further inappropriate comments on Facebook, stating:
(a) “FYI….Tomorrow is punch idiots in the face day. Post pics please.”;
(b) “Can’t wait to get professionally developed tomorrow!!!#Barf”.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of these Facebook posts.
As a result of these ongoing issues, a meeting was held in April of 2014 with the Member, his ETFO representative and the superintendent. The Member’s inappropriate comments and insubordination were reviewed. The Member did not admit to making the comments and was evasive, indicating that he was not the individual making the Facebook posts despite the evidence showing that they were being posted from his usual Facebook account.
The Member received a discipline letter from the Board concerning these issues on April 17, 2014. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member.
On June 29, 2015, Person 4 emailed the superintendent and enclosed FirstClass communications from the Member. In one of these communications, the Member implied that the issues with FirstClass were “spiteful and vexatious”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of an excerpt of the Member’s communication.
In October of 2014, the Member and Person 1 had a dispute concerning a storage area outside of Person 1’s classroom. The Member advised his students to use this area, despite it being reserved for Person 1’s students, which confused his students. It was the Member’s position that his students did not have adequate storage and the storage outside Person 1’s classroom was not being fully utilized. The Member was eventually advised by the administration of [XXX] School that he could not use this storage area.
During the week of October 31, 2014, Person 1 detained four students after their [XXX] class was finished to discuss their behaviour. The Member came to the doorway of Person 1’s classroom and stated “come on, they are late” in front of the students. The Member was frustrated that Person 1 regularly detained students during her prep period, which was during his instructional time, and when he often assigned and explained the days homework.
On November 4, 2014, the Member attended Person 1’s classroom. Person 1 had again detained students after her class had finished because of their behaviour and had given these students a detention for the next day. The Member came to the doorway and called the students out of the room, stating “come on, we’ve got things to do.”
In February of 2015, Person 1 told a few students to attend her classroom in the morning to discuss their behaviour in her class. These students were scheduled to be in the Member’s classroom during this time and did not show up to Person 1’s classroom. Person 1 approached the students in the hallway and began to talk to them about their behaviour. The Member came up to the group and told the students to “Get back into the classroom.” Person 1 stated that she needed to speak with the students about something that had happened the previous day. The Member proceeded to cut Person 1 off, told her “no”, and again stated to the students to get back into the classroom.
In April 2015, Person 1 asked two students to remain after her class. The Member came to Person 1’s classroom doorway and stated that if Person 1 had to speak to the students, that she should do so “on her own time.” The Member further stated that Person 1 had to “give the students [her] instructions” and that this was “getting out of hand.” The Member made these statements in front of students and his tone was disrespectful.
Toward the end of the 2014-2015 academic year, the Member wrote an email to Person 1 stating: “you were a nightmare to work with this year.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of a record of this email from the Member to Person 1.
On or about the last school day of June 26, 2015, the Member brought his three children to [XXX] School. The children were running in the school hallway. Person 4 requested that the Member take his children home and that he find appropriate childcare. In the afternoon, the Member took his children home and proceeded to record his absence from school as a “half-care day.” The Board refused to pay the Member for the half day he was absent.
The Member then inappropriately attempted to submit a form used for requests pertaining to reimbursement for expenses related to student activities (a “Non-Board Fund Voucher”). The Member attempted to claim reimbursement of $414.21 for stolen pay, which he alleged was the amount he lost as a result of the Board’s denial of his half-care day. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is a copy the Non-Board Fund Voucher submitted by the Member.
Following this incident, the Member posted the following electronic comments addressed to [XXX] School on the FirstClass system:
(a) On August 9, 2015: “Just a reminder to anyone thinking about having helpers/parent volunteers/children, assist them on the 3rd… Don’t bring them to help clean, set up your room, or help you in anyway. I’d hate to see anyone lose a day’s pay. However, it’s ok to have volunteers in your room any other day, or during staff meetings. Even if your child is sick, don’t bring them. The board will dock your pay if you can’t find arrangements and need to take a care day. Enjoy the rest of your time away”;
(b) On August 25, 2015: “I can’t believe the board would dispute a sick child, a Care Day, with zero evidence. This whole situation is the result of a vindictive administrator trying to exert control. Pathetic.”
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I” is a copy of these posts.
As a result of the Member’s inappropriate use of a care day and his response to the Board, he was directed by Person 4 to meet with the superintendent of student achievement on September 9, 2015. The Member was provided with release time to attend this meeting within the instructional day. The Member advised Person 4 that he would not be attending the meeting. Following this, the superintendent of student achievement directed the Member to attend the meeting with her that same day, noting that it was her understanding that the Member had advised Person 4 that he would not be attending the meeting.
On September 9, 2015, the Member failed to meet with the superintendent of student achievement. Following the missed meeting that same day, the superintendent of student achievement wrote to the Member, informing him that he was not permitted to return to work until he had met with her and she had cleared him to return to work. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “J” is a copy of the letter from the superintendent of student achievement to the Member.
Later in the day on September 9, 2015, the Member met with Person 4 in her office. The Member asked Person 4 what would happen if he attended [XXX] School the next day, despite the letter he had received advising that he was not permitted to attend school property. Person 4 advised that if the Member came to [XXX] School the next day that she would call the police.
On September 10, 2015, the Member attended [XXX] School to pick up his children. The Member called beforehand and did not enter the building.
Later in the evening of September 10, 2015, the Member attended at [XXX] School in violation of the express direction not to attend. The Member banged on the locked doors and attempted to get inside the building, which frightened a custodian who was inside. The custodian noted that it appeared the Member was holding a sock filled with something. This custodian called the police as per instructions given to the custodial staff.
Person 4 also observed the Member, who parked his car in front of her office. Person 4 observed the Member turning on his video camera after he parked his car and was frightened, as she was working alone in her office. It appeared to Person 4 that the Member was filming her. Person 4 also spoke with the police. By the time the police arrived, the Member had left. As a result of this incident, a safety plan was put in place for the staff at [XXX] School.
On September 14, 2015, the superintendent of student achievement wrote to the Member banning him from attending [XXX] School and providing notice of trespass. She noted that the Member’s presence was detrimental to the physical and mental well-being of pupils and staff. Effective September 14, 2015, the Member was not permitted inside or on [XXX]School property. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “K” is a copy of the letter from the superintendent of student achievement to the Member.
[XXX] School:
As a result of his conduct, the Member was relocated and placed at [XXX]School on a Long Term Occasional assignment teaching Grade [XXX] and Grade [XXX] from April of 2016 to June of 2016.
During April of 2016, Student 1 was a male Grade [XXX] student at [XXX] School.
In April of 2016, two concerns were brought to the Oxford Children’s Aid Society (the “CAS”) regarding the Member’s interactions with students. It was alleged that the Member had inappropriate physical contact with two students, including Student 1.
The Member was placed on home assignment and the CAS and the police conducted a joint investigation. The CAS investigated and concluded that the allegations were not verified and closed their file. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “L” is a copy of a letter from the Oxford Children’s Aid Society to the Board dated June 28, 2016.
On or about about May 5, 2016, the Member sent a message on Class Dojo, the Board’s messaging application, in response to a parent inquiry to all of the parents in his class who had signed up for the application. The parents of Student 1 did not receive the message. The Member’s message falsely stated that he had been removed from the classroom due to a parental complaint that had resulted in a Children’s Aid Society investigation. In fact, the complaint had been made by the administration at [XXX] School and not the parents of Student 1. The Member stated the following: “…Keep in mind that anyone can make an allegation about a teacher, even when nothing has happened, there are zero grounds for this complaint…”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “M” is a copy of the Member’s messages.
On May 11, 2016, the superintendent wrote to the Member advising him that his post to Class Dojo was inappropriate and unauthorized. The Member was directed not to communicate with parents or staff at any Board school without the permission of the superintendent. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “N” is a copy of the superintendent’s letter to the Member.
Termination:
As a result of the incidents of inappropriate conduct at Thames Valley schools that had occurred since 2010, on or about April 19, 2017, the Member’s employment was terminated by the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “O” is a copy of a letter from the superintendent of human resources to the Member dated April 19, 2017 and the Board’s Termination of Employee Report dated April 11, 2017. On September 26, 2017, the Board wrote to the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers to report that the Board had resolved to terminate the Member.
The Member grieved his termination and the matter proceeded to arbitration. Pursuant to the arbitrator’s award, on April 26, 2018, the Member’s employment was reinstated retroactive to April 19, 2017. The Member was placed on an unpaid leave for the period April 19, 2017 to August 31, 2019, following which he resigned his employment for personal reasons.
Employment at Hishkoonikun Education Authority:
In June of 2017, the Member was headhunted for a position at the Hishkoonikun Education Authority (the “Education Authority”) for a position as a teacher at [XXX]School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario. The principal of the School contacted the Member after finding his resume online on the First Nations Education Canada Network.
The Member was interviewed by the Education Authority by phone on June 6, 2017. During his telephone interview on June 6, 2017, the Member was also asked why he was applying for a position as a teacher in the community and his prior experience was discussed. The Member did not disclose to the Authority that his previous employment had been terminated by the Thames Valley District School Board.
On or about June 12, 2017, the Member received an offer of employment and became employed by the Education Authority as a teacher at the School in [XXX], Ontario. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “P” is a copy of the Education Authority’s offer to the Member dated June 8, 2017.
Alcohol is not permitted on the [XXX] First Nation reserve. This was explained to the Member during the first staff meeting at the School, which took place shortly after the Member arrived in the community.
The Hishkoonikun Education Authority Human Resources policy notes that the use of alcoholic beverages while reporting to work would result in immediate disciplinary action. The Member was provided a copy of this policy when he signed his employment contract after arriving on the [XXX] First Nation reserve and before classes had started. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “Q” is a copy of an excerpt of this policy (see paragraphs 22.5 and 22.6).
On or about October 21, 2017, the Member was found in a classroom with the door closed by the night security guard. When the Member did not answer when prompted, the night security guard called the Nishnawbe Aski police service. The police found the Member sleeping in a classroom beside a half-empty 40 ounce bottle of vodka, which was open.
When the police woke the Member up, it was apparent that he was intoxicated, having consumed alcohol on school property. The police escorted the Member off of School property and back to his home. The custodian at the School kept the bottle of vodka to show the administration at the Authority.
After the police escorted the Member to his home, the Member returned to the School’s premises. The Member proceeded to attend a wedding reception and feast that was being held at the School’s hockey arena. There were students, parents and members of the community who witnessed the Member intoxicated.
On October 23, 2017, the Member received a written reprimand for drinking on School property and was suspended without pay for two days. The reprimand included a final warning of immediate dismissal should drinking on School property occur again. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “R” is a copy of this letter from the principal to the Member.
On or about November 8, 2017, the Member’s employment was terminated by the Education Authority. Following the drinking incident, the Authority looked into the Member’s history, discovering that the Member had failed to inform the Education Authority that he had been terminated by the Thames Valley District School Board. The Education Authority also learned that the Member was under investigation by the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “S” is a copy of the Education Authority’s letter to the Member dated November 8, 2017.
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 paragraphs 1-61 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby understands 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), 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 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 counsel for the College and himself 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.
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 may4 find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
8Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Notice of Hearing dated May 8, 2019(Exhibit 1)and paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing dated May 13, 2019 (Exhibit 2), namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.1) 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. With respect to subsection 1(7.1), College Counsel submitted that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding under that subsection. The Panel granted the requests.
9Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, 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(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
10The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 61 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 engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conduct, including making inappropriate comments, being insubordinate and engaging in aggressive behaviour.
11The 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 standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” and the ethical standards of “Respect”, “Integrity” and “Trust” as follows.
12The standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” requires members to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that from 2010 to 2017, the Member repeatedly engaged in acts of insubordination. On one occasion, the Member attended the [XXX] School in violation of express directions not to do so. The Member banged on the locked doors and attempted to get inside the building, which frightened the custodian. The custodian noted that it appeared that the Member was holding a sock filled with something. The police was called. In addition, Person 4 observed that the Member had parked his car in front of Person 4’s office and appeared to be filming her. This frightened Person 4 as she was working alone in her office. As a result of this incident, a safety plan had to be put in place for staff at the [XXX] School. The Panel finds that by being insubordinate and engaging in aggressive conduct which frightened members of the school community, the Member failed to foster a collaborative and safe working environment at school.
13The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to “honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development.” The Member made inappropriate comments to parents and used an inappropriate tone of voice with them. Moreover, on multiple occasions, the Member criticized and made sarcastic comments on the Board’s messaging application, FirstClass, regarding his colleagues, superiors and the Board. The Member also made inappropriate statements to Person 1, cut her off when she was talking and undermined her authority, in front of students. The Panel finds that by doing so, the Member showed a profound disrespect for parents, colleagues, his superiors and his employer.
14The ethical standard of “Integrity” requires members to conduct themselves with “honesty, reliability and moral action.” The ethical standard of “Trust” provides that “Members’ professional relationships with […] colleagues and parents are based on trust.” The Member’s conduct fell short of these ethical standards. For instance, when the Board refused to pay the Member for a half day of absence, the Member inappropriately attempted to claim that amount by submitting a Non-Board Fund voucher. The Non-Board Fund voucher is used for reimbursement of expenses related to student activities and not lost pay. Furthermore, during his interview with the Education Authority the Member, did not disclose to them that his previous employment had been terminated by the Thames Valley District School Board. The Panel notes that the Member’s interview with the Education Authority occurred before the Member’s employment was reinstated retroactively following arbitration. Therefore, the Member conducted himself dishonestly with respect to the Education Authority. Similarly, the Member’s communications with parents were deceitful, including when he lied to Person 2 about recording their conversation and when he posted a false statement on the Board’s messaging application (Class Dojo) that he was removed from the classroom due to a parental complaint that had resulted in a Children’s Aid Society Investigation, when in fact the complaint had been made by school administration. By engaging in such dishonest behaviour, the Member demonstrated a lack of integrity and broke the trust which his employers and parents had placed in him.
15The 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. Section 264(1)(c) provides that teachers must demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues including truth, justice and temperance. This provision is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models. The Member behaved contrary to these principles by, among other things, modeling dishonest behaviour as set out above, and by inappropriately attending an event on school property, which was also attended by students, parents, and members of the community, while he was intoxicated. Section 264(1)(d) requires teachers to “assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school.” As set out in the Uncontested Facts, the Member repeatedly behaved in a disrespectful, aggressive, or insubordinate manner with his colleagues and superiors. His behaviour towards Person 1 was particularly inappropriate. Overall, the Member’s pattern of rude and uncooperative behaviour was at odds with his duties as a teacher to cooperate with other members of school staff.
16The Member breached subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by engaging in a pattern of inappropriate conduct as described above. Disgraceful and dishonourable conduct includes conduct which is immoral or dishonest. It is unacceptable for teachers, who are expected to be upstanding members of the school community, to engage in aggressive and deceitful behaviour. Moreover, the Member demonstrated a concerning lack of professional judgment by repeatedly being insubordinate and making inappropriate comments about his colleagues, superiors, employers and the Education Quality and Accountability Office. The Member also demonstrated poor judgment by being intoxicated on school property and in front of students and parents. As a teacher, the Member was expected to behave honourably and professionally in the workplace. The Member did the opposite and as such his behaviour was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
17Similarly, the Member’s conduct as described above was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is eroded when members engage in such a litany of inappropriate behaviour, as the Member did in this case.
F. PENALTY Decision
18The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), 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 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 6 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;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to returning to teaching 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 respectful communication and the role of teachers as a community role model, 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 Plea5 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;
(iii) the course shall be completed no more than three months before the Member returns to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required.
(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
19The 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. Charette, 2018 ONOCT 32, Ontario College of Teachers v. Béarez, 2019 ONOCT 17 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Boote, 2018 ONOCT 45.
20The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (1) the Member’s misconduct formed part of a concerning pattern of behaviour and (2) the Member’s misconduct made his colleagues feel frightened such that the police had to be contacted and a safety plan had to be generated for staff at [XXX] School. 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 College discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
21The Panel finds that the Member’s disrespectful communications as well as his deceitful and aggressive behaviour warrant a reprimand. Members of the teaching profession are expected to behave professionally and act as positive role models. They must also foster a safe and collegial working environment. 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.
22Given the repeated nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a six-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 August 27, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
23The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding respectful communication and the role of teachers as a community role model, will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, should he 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 parents, colleagues and other members of the school community.
24The 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
Wanda Percival Chair, Discipline Panel
Gary Pieters, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Jonathan Rose Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
- Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
- Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
- College Counsel clarified that the word “may” had been inadvertently included in paragraph 66. Given that the Member was neither present nor legally represented during the hearing, this typographical error in the Statement of Uncontested of Facts and Plea of No Contest could not be amended.
- College Counsel submitted that this is a typographical error. The Panel understands that “Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea” should read “Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest”.