DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Chrisopoulos 2022 ONOCT 101

Date: 2022-11-06

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

Theodoros Chrisopoulos, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

THEODOROS CHRISOPOULOS (REGISTRATION #462541)

PANEL: Wanda Percival, OCT, Chair Andrew Glenny Terrence Singh, OCT

HEARD: September 29, 2022

Jordan Glick, for the Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for Theodoros Chrisopoulos

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 September 29, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Theodoros Chrisopoulos (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

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 February 15, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Theodoros Chrisopoulos is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(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 committed an act or 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 made remarks and/or engaged in behaviours that exposed a person or a class of persons to hatred on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination under Part I of the Human Rights Code, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(28).¹

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. At all material times, Theodoros Chrisopoulos was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. From September 2005 to November 2020, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”) located in Toronto, Ontario.

3. The community in which the School is located (the “Community”) is racially diverse and is home to a large immigrant population.

4. During the 2019-2020 school year, the Member made inappropriate and culturally insensitive comments and gestures to students in his Grade [XXX] [XXX] class including, but not limited to:

(a) stating that students at the School were acting “gangster”;

(b) in reference to the behavior of students at the School, stating: “you go like N****a [using the full word] this,” and repeating this multiple times;

(c) in reference to how students were acting in his class, mimicked students and saying: “Yo Na, yo Na [using the full word in both instances],”;

(d) using the word “N****a” [using the full word] in a discussion about cultural appropriation and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “doing Brown face and Black face,”; and

(e) stating in conversation with students regarding former U.S. President Barack Obama (“Obama”):

(i) that Obama is a racist;

(ii) that Obama “grew up white”;

(iii) that Obama “dated a Black woman and lived with Black people to become entirely Black”;

(iv) that Obama had to marry a Black woman to become president; and

(f) regarding the Community:

(i) that the Community is a “poor community”;

(ii) compared to people in more affluent areas, people in the Community are complacent and are not politically engaged; and

(g) that students formed gangs because they were uneducated;

(h) that Chicago is “ridden with poor Black people and poverty”;

(i) that people who appreciate “Black language” are uneducated;

(j) that students at the School should be thinking of careers in the skilled trades instead of thinking they should become a lawyer or go into medicine; and

(k) referring to people from African heritage as being “Black people” or “Black”, or words to that effect, on numerous occasions.

5. An investigation conducted by the Board found that the Member’s conduct was a source of considerable upset and discomfort for his students. Students drew the conclusion that the Member’s statements were discriminatory and disparaging toward people of color.

6. On September 9, 2020, subsequent to the investigation conducted by the Board, the Member was issued a 10-day unpaid disciplinary suspension and directed to participate in professional development and training with respect to his responsibility as a teacher in the employ of the Board to promote fairness, equity, acceptance, and inclusion, in the course of his professional practice.

7. On or around November 24, 2020, the Member resigned from the Board. He is not currently working as a teacher.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

8. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct for the purposes of this proceeding only the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-7 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

9. The Member hereby acknowledges that the conduct contained within paragraph 4-5 of the Uncontested Facts constitutes conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

(a) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(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 committed an act or 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).

10. 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 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 legal advice.

11. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, 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.

12. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, 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 (e) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(28) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as this subsection was not in force at the time of the Member’s misconduct and was included through inadvertence. The Panel granted the request.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 29, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14) and 1(18).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 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 outlined at paragraphs 4 and 5 of Exhibit 2 constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member made highly inappropriate and culturally insensitive comments and gestures to students.

9The Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by making several inappropriate and culturally insensitive comments to students. For instance, in reference to how students were acting in his class, the Member mimicked students and said “Yo Na, yo Na [using the full word in both instances]”, and in reference to the behaviour of students at the School, the Member stated: “you go like N****a [using the full word] this,” and repeating this multiple times. Furthermore, the Member stated that students at the School were acting “gangster”. Students drew the conclusion that the Member’s statements were discriminatory and disparaging toward people of colour. The Panel agrees. Teachers are expected to set positive examples for students and to be respectful of the diverse cultures that form part of their school communities. Using racial slurs and making derogatory comments when addressing students is offensive and suggests that people of colour are intellectually and culturally inferior and unworthy. Such comments amount to verbal abuse of students by the Member.

10The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Given the power that teachers hold in a classroom and the fact that such power can maintain and perpetuate a colonial culture and oppressive approaches, the Member’s conduct would reasonably have had adverse psychological or emotional impacts on students, particularly those of colour. Indeed, the Panel has received evidence that the Member’s discriminatory and culturally insensitive conduct was a source of considerable upset and discomfort for his students. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s behaviour towards students was psychologically or emotionally abusive.

11The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the standards of practice of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” and “Leadership in Learning Communities” as well as the ethical standard of “Respect”. Members are required to treat students equitably, with respect and to be sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning. They are also required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. Additionally, members must honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development as well as model respect for spiritual and cultural values.

12By repeatedly engaging in culturally insensitive and disparaging conduct towards students, the Member made discriminatory racial comments and demonstrated a lack of tolerance and respect for cultural diversity. Furthermore, by making comments such as “students formed gangs because they were uneducated”, “people who appreciate ‘Black language’ are uneducated” and “students at the School should be thinking of careers in the skilled trades instead of thinking they should become lawyer or go into medicine”, the Member perpetuated negative stereotypes. Teachers must understand that students of colour and particularly Black students, may consider staying in school more harmful to their sense of worth than leaving. By perpetuating negative stereotypes about them, the Member failed to develop a learning environment that instills a sense of confidence, support and belonging for all students. Rather, the Member created a poisoned environment and one that is not conducive to academic success. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct fell below the professional and ethical standards of the profession.

13The Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and to be culturally inclusive in their interactions with students. The Member did the opposite by his repeated racist and discriminatory conduct in class. Such conduct demonstrates considerable moral failing and a concerning lack of professional judgment by the Member. There is no place for racism, discrimination and intolerance in a learning environment.

F. PENALTY Decision

14The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 29, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered in writing, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 12 months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) prior to commencing any teaching position in Ontario (including in a private school), or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar regarding cultural sensitivity, systemic racism and professional boundaries, 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, Reasons for Decision and Order of the 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 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; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate 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.² The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

16The Panel carefully weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. Firstly, the Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment. The Member made several disparaging and racially charged comments towards students during the 2019-2020 academic year. Secondly, the Member’s conduct was a source of considerable upset and discomfort for his students. Thirdly, as an experienced teacher, the Member ought to have known that such comments were inappropriate, particularly given that the community in which the School was located was racially diverse and home to a large immigrant population. Finally, the Member’s culturally insensitive conduct perpetuated negative stereotypes in relation to People of Colour. 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 would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to be positive role models and their conduct must be reflective of the acceptance and inclusiveness expected in Ontario’s schools. By repeatedly engaging in racist conduct towards students such as using racial slurs in class and reinforcing racist stereotypes that people who appreciate “Black language” are “uneducated”, the Member failed to meet these expectations. 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.

18College Counsel presented the Panel with the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee in support of his submission that a 12-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate in this case: Ontario College of Teachers v. Dimarco, 2021 ONOCT 142, Ontario College of Teachers v. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48, Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79, Ontario College of Teachers v. Aloise, 2022 ONOCT 9.

19In Dimarco, the Member was revoked for engaging in inappropriate conduct including promoting anti-Semitic, hateful and conspiratorial views in the 2018-2019 academic year. In Manga, the Member received a four-month suspension, as part of the penalty ordered by the panel, for making several inappropriate remarks including racist and homophobic comments in the 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 academic years. In Antonenko, the Member received a five-month suspension as part of the penalty ordered by the panel for engaging in inappropriate conduct, including making sarcastic and racist comments to students in the 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 academic years. In Aloise, the Member received a five-month suspension as part of the penalty, for engaging in inappropriate conduct including making derogatory or culturally insensitive comments in the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic years.

20College Counsel submitted that, although the Member’s conduct is not as serious as that in Dimarco and is more similar to the conduct in Manga, Antonenko and Aloise, a higher suspension is warranted in the present matter due to changing societal values. The conduct in Manga, Antonenko and Aloise are quite dated and societal values regarding racism have changed since then. College Counsel referred the Panel to the cases of Adams v. Law Society of Alberta, 2000 ABCA 240 and Schwarz v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 3313 in support of his submission that the Panel can consider this factor when determining the appropriateness of the 12-month suspension.

21The Panel accepts these submissions and finds that a 12-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate in this case for the following two reasons. Firstly, the 12-month suspension meets the penalty principles of public protection as well as specific and general deterrence. Ensuring that the Member cannot hold a teaching position for 12 months will protect students from any further racist conduct during that period. The suspension will also 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 and cannot be tolerated in a learning environment.

22Secondly, the Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that societal values regarding racism and discriminatory conduct have changed over the past few years. Although it is not a new issue, increased attention is now being paid to racism and discriminatory behaviour. While a 12-month suspension is higher than the range of four to five months imposed in prior similar cases (Manga, Antonenko and Aloise), the facts of this case, changing societal values in relation to racism and the need for greater denunciation justify the higher suspension of 12 months agreed to by the parties. Moreover, the Panel accepts that the 12-month suspension falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, as it is a less severe penalty than revocation, which was ordered in Dimarco for discriminatory conduct (albeit more severe) of a similar nature. The caselaw presented indicates that racist and discriminatory conduct could lead to a penalty up to an including revocation, in terms of severity. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension began on October 14, 2022, which was 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

23The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding cultural sensitivity, systemic racism and professional boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. 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. The coursework should provide the Member with an awareness of the adverse impacts of racism, conscious and unconscious bias as well as stereotypes in a learning environment. It should also provide the Member with strategies to unlearn racist and discriminatory practices, and a clear understanding of how to be more culturally sensitive in his professional practice.

24The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.