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
Gary Wayne Maddeaux, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
GARY WAYNE MADDEAUX (REGISTRATION #239830)
PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, Chair William Goldbloom Linda Staudt, OCT
HEARD: September 2, 2021
Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Naomi Greckol-Herlich, for Gary Wayne Maddeaux Julie Maciura, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on September 2, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Gary Wayne Maddeaux (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation. The Member attended immediately after the hearing for the delivery of his reprimand as agreed to by the parties. 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 January 22, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Gary Wayne Maddeaux 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);
(d) 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);
(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(f) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);
(g) 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:
Gary Wayne Maddeaux 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] School (the “School”).
At all material times Student 1 was a male student at the School, who was [XXX].
On or about November 7, 2018, the Member became frustrated with Student 1 when he refused to get on an [XXX] in the School’s [XXX]. After threatening the student with consequences, the Member decided to remove the student from the [XXX] by grabbing him by his arm. The Student resisted and fell to the floor, at which point the Member dragged the Student along the floor while raising his voice at him. Three other staff members were present and witnessed the incident.
The [XXX] assigned to Student 1, who was present with him at the time of the incident, was directed by the Member to assist him in dragging Student 1 out of the School’s [XXX].
On or about November 15, 2018, the Member was making chili for his class. Student 1 was required to sit in the hallway with his [XXX] due to a prior incident and was not permitted to have the food. The Student re-entered the classroom without permission. The Member told Student 1 to “get out”. As the Member tried to close the door, the student kicked it. The Member exited the classroom, grabbed Student 1 by the upper body and pushed him up against the lockers in the hallway.
The Member held Student 1 with his back to the locker for approximately 10 seconds. The Member shouted at Student 1 with his face a few inches from Student 1’s face. This incident was witnessed by other staff members and recorded on a hallway video camera.
Following an investigation by the Board, the Member was suspended for a period of 10 days without pay, which was subsequently reduced to 6 days. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s correspondence to the Member dated January 18, 2019.
The Member retired from the Board in June 2019, having reached full retirement age and service requirements.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member understands that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member 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(7.1), 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 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 this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain 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 the 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 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 sought the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation because proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. The Panel granted the request.
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 September 2, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(14),1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 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 inappropriate conduct towards Student 1, who was [XXX] and [XXX].
9The Member verbally abused Student 1, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member threatened the student and raised his voice in anger or shouted at him on more than one occasion. During one incident, the Member held Student 1 against a locker and shouted at him while mere inches from his face. It is unacceptable for teachers to verbally threaten students, to raise their voice at students, or to shout at them to gain their compliance, even in the face of challenging student behaviour. Teachers must always maintain their composure and be professional in their dealings with students, which the Member failed to do in this case. As such, the Member’s conduct amounts to verbal abuse.
10The Member physically abused Student 1 contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by repeatedly making unnecessary and aggressive physical contact with Student 1. The Member’s conduct included: grabbing Student 1 by his arm; dragging him along the floor; grabbing Student 1 by his upper body and pushing him up against the lockers; and holding Student 1 with his back to the locker for approximately 10 seconds. Teachers must ensure that schools are safe spaces for students. They must use appropriate discipline methods that do not involve the unnecessary use of physical force. College Counsel submitted that with respect to students with [XXX], “[…] physical intervention must be used only in situations where a student’s behaviour presents a clear and imminent risk of injury to the student and/or others” (pages 1-2 of Exhibit B of Exhibit 2). The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that in the incidents described above, the student’s behaviour did not present a clear and imminent risk of injury to the Member or to others. As such, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes physical abuse of a student.
11The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening section 32 of the College’s 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 “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. The standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities” requires members to promote and participate in the collaboration of safe and supportive learning communities. By repeatedly engaging in physically and verbally aggressive behaviour towards Student 1, as described above, the Member disregarded Student 1’s well-being and was disrespectful towards Student 1. Physical and verbal aggression by a teacher towards a student creates a fearful atmosphere that is incompatible with the expectation that teachers will promote a safe and supportive learning environment. As such, the Member’s conduct fell below the professional and ethical standards of the teaching profession.
12The 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)(b) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage students in the pursuit of learning and section 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models. By repeatedly engaging in violent behaviour towards Student 1, the Member discouraged Student 1 from learning. Furthermore, by displaying such conduct at school in front of staff members and Student 1’s [XXX], the Member failed to behave as a positive role model in his school community. In these ways, the Member failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.
13The 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. It is unacceptable for a teacher, who occupies a trusted position of power and authority, to threaten and repeatedly use unnecessary physical force with a vulnerable student. Moreover, not only did the Member use unnecessary physical force with Student 1 himself, on one occasion, he also directed Student 1’s [XXX] to assist him in dragging the student against his will. By resorting to such violent means in response to a student with [XXX], the Member’s conduct demonstrated serious moral and professional failings that call into question his ability to practise the profession. Teachers must behave honorably and professionally with students, even when faced with challenging student behaviour. The Member repeatedly failed to meet his professional obligations. As such his conduct can be properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
14The 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. When teachers lose self-control and use unnecessary physical force against vulnerable students with [XXX], they undermine the reputation of the teaching profession and violate 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 September 2, 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 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 impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to returning to teaching, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management, particularly in relation to students with [XXX], and anger management, 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 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. Dayfoot, 2018 ONOCT 73, Ontario College of Teachers v. Hunt, 2020 LNONCTD 81 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Carle, 2020 ONOCT 135.
17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (1) the repeated nature of the Member’s aggressive behaviour; (2) the Member’s misconduct was directed at a student with [XXX]; and (3) the Member’s conduct was witnessed by staff and the student’s [XXX].In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
18The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated violent behaviour toward Student 1, warrants a reprimand. Teachers are expected to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for students. They must also maintain their composure when managing challenging student behaviour. 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 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 the teaching profession 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 September 17, 2021, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management, particularly in relation to students with [XXX], and anger management, will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, should he ever return to the teaching profession. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher. It will also help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students, especially those with [XXX].
21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: September 8, 2021
Hanno Weinberger Chair, Discipline Panel
William Goldbloom Member, Discipline Panel
Linda Staudt, OCT Member, Discipline Panel