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 Walter Tersigni, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
WALTER TERSIGNI (REGISTRATION #255503)
PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair Élaine Legault Yasser Leheta, OCT
HEARD: November 8, 2022
Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Kylie Sier, for Walter Tersigni 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 November 8, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Walter Tersigni (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 July 7, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Walter Tersigni 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 failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 26 of 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
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Walter Tersigni is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers with Inactive/Non-Practising status. 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 York Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a core resource teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Person A was the Principal of the School.
At all material times, Person B was a female Educational Assistant at the School.
At all material times, Person C was a female core resource teacher at the School.
In the 2017-2018 academic year, Person D was a retired, female teacher, employed by the Board on a contract basis to support the core resource teachers.
At all material times, Person E was the School custodian.
Member’s Interactions with Person A
When Person A first became the Principal at the School in September 2015, she and the Member had a collaborative working relationship. Their relationship began to deteriorate in the winter and spring of 2016.
Between about March 2016 and January 2019, the Member would not respond to emails from Person A, and refused to adhere to her requests around his conduct in the core classroom, specifically asking the Member not to turn off the classroom lights, play the radio on his computer and/or leave the classroom windows open during the school day.
Despite Person A’s attempts to address these issues with the Member, his behaviour worsened over time, to the point where Person A had to escalate matters to the Board level to address the Member’s behaviour.
Person A became increasingly concerned about the Member’s perceived attempts to intimidate her and other staff members. Her concerns escalated following a meeting with the Member, in her office on or about January 22, 2018, the day following the Member’s return from a bereavement leave. When Person A requested completed documents from the Member, he raised his voice at Person A, telling her that she was not to email him about any of her concerns in the future, and abruptly ended the meeting by leaving Person A’s office and shutting the door loudly behind him.
Member’s Interactions with Person B
On or about September 21, 2016, Person B encountered the Member in the staff room, whereupon she told him that he was just the person she was looking for as she needed to know where in the School he planned to conduct his parent-teacher curriculum meetings. Person A had asked Person B to create a list of meeting locations of all teachers. In response to Person B’s question, the Member turned to her aggressively, and said, “Why are you asking me?” When Person B explained her task, the Member raised his voice and stated that, in all the years he worked, he had never had to explain where he had to be, or words to that effect. Person B felt threatened and intimated by the Member and immediately left the room.
Person B reported the Member’s behaviour to Person A and a mediation meeting was arranged in Person A’s office with union representatives present. In spite of this meeting, Person B remained afraid of the Member and tried to avoid him whenever possible.
The Member told Person B, and other Educational Assistants (the “EAs”), that they were not to use the core classroom. When the Member was the only core resource teacher present, he would lock the classroom door. The other core resource teachers had no issue with the EAs sharing the classroom with them.
Member’s Interactions with Person C
- On or about March 8, 2018, after receiving an email from Person A about the core classroom lights and his use of his computer radio in the classroom, the Member sent an email to Person C demanding to be informed of the exact contents of her “report” to Person A regarding the light and radio issues, which he believed he was entitled to pursuant to Regulation 18(b) of the Teaching Professions Act.
Member’s Interactions with Person D
Person D worked at the School for several days in January 2018, prior to the Member returning from a leave of absence. During that time, Person D worked freely in the core room and worked collaboratively with the other core teacher, as well as the Member’s substitute.
When the Member returned to work, he advised Person D that he had been doing the job for 22 years and did not need her help. The following day, Person D asked the Member if he had some time to discuss with her a particular student with whom the Member had worked in prior years, but who was not his assigned student during the school year in question. The Member was not prepared to make time for a discussion, nor provide the documents Person D was seeking in relation to this student. When Person D continued to ask for information, the Member raised his voice and stated that he was unwilling to work with her. Person D felt flustered and intimidated. She was shaking from their interaction. The Member told her it would be best if she worked in another room.
Person D returned to work at the School for several days in February 2018. During that time, Person D made every effort to avoid any interaction with the Member, and only went into the core room when he was not there. The other core teacher had to act as an intermediary between the Member and Person D. The Member never provided Person D with the information she required about the student and so she had to access it with the help of the Educational Assistants.
Other Disruptive Behaviour by the Member
On or about May 9, 2016, at a PA Day meeting, a long term occasional teacher (“LTO teacher”) presented a video for staff that she made with her Kindergarten students. During her presentation, the Member repeatedly interrupted his colleague stating privacy concerns about the security of the video. This caused the LTO teacher to become flustered and upset. Person A intervened twice to stop the Member and suggested that they meet afterwards to discuss his concerns. The LTO teacher was in tears after the presentation, and was so upset that she discontinued the project.
Between in or about September 2016 and May 2018, the Member prevented school and Board staff from using the core classroom by expressly telling them not to use it and by discouraging their use of the room.
While School staff, Board staff and/or students were present, the Member repeatedly turned off the lights in the core room during school hours, played sports radio from his computer, kept the windows in the core room open, even during winter, and/or kept the classroom door locked, all of which made the core room inaccessible and/or uncomfortable for use by his colleagues. When Person A addressed these concerns with the Member, he pushed back, telling her that the core room should not be a drop off point for problematic children, nor a meeting room.
In or around April and May 2018, the Member pinned, on the bulletin board behind his desk, a complaint letter written about him by a retired teacher. The letter had been sent to the Board in June 2016, copying the Member. Person A believed that the Member’s purpose in doing this was to intimidate staff using the core room.
On or about May 3, 2018, the Member damaged the core room by: pulling down the curtains and curtain rod; emptying boxes containing the personal contents of Person C and placing the contents on the floor; disrupting and moving items on Person C’s desk and placing an exercise ball on it; and disrupting and defacing Person C’s religious table. Person C was extremely upset when she discovered the state of the room, and felt that she was at a “breaking point” with the Member.
The Member learned from another teacher that Person E had told him that the curtains had been pulled down in the core room. On or about May 7, 2018, the Member sent an email to Person E addressing him by a nickname that very few people used and by which the Member had never addressed him before. In the email, the Member stated, “It has come to my attention that you had a conversation with [colleague’s name] regarding the drapes that fell in room 6, is that correct?”
Person E responded “no” to the Member’s email. The Member then followed up with a second email to Person E stating, “Please think carefully as [colleague’s name] said to me at 11:59am that you had indeed verbalized to him that the drapes remained on the floor, as well as to your confusion as to why I hadn’t reported the faulty drapes in the office, not so subtly suggesting that I was in some way responsible for them falling down. I ask again, is this the conversation that you had with [colleague’s name] regarding me and the drapes in room 6.”
Person E found the second email upsetting as the Member was accusing him of something he did not do. He felt that the Member was trying to intimidate him with these emails and he brought copies of them to show Person A.
Completion of school documentation
On numerous occasions between about October 2016 and May 2018, the Member failed to complete student-related documentation accurately, in a timely manner and/or at all. This required Person A to have to repeatedly remind the Member to fulfill his responsibilities in this regard, or to complete the work herself.
Given that Person A, and other staff working with the Member’s students, relied upon the timeliness of the Member’s work in order to perform their jobs, the Member’s actions negatively impacted his colleagues.
Board Investigation
- The Board retained LMB Investigations, an external firm, to conduct an investigation into allegations of workplace harassment and workplace violence made by Person A against the Member. The investigator concluded that the Member had violated the Board’s Workplace Harassment and Workplace Violence policies. The Member grieved these findings and the subsequent discipline measures imposed. The grievance was resolved with confidential Minutes of Settlement. The Member retired effective June 30, 2021.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby 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(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 him and counsel for the College 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 having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990 chapter E.23, for the purposes 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 stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought as proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. The Panel granted the request.
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 8, 2022, 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
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 29 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 heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in intimidating and unprofessional behaviour towards his administrator and several co-workers.
9The 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 standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” and the ethical standards of “Respect” and “Trust”. Members are required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities (“Leadership in Learning Communities”). They must also honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. In their professional practice, they must model respect for spiritual and cultural values, among other things (“Respect”). Furthermore, members’ professional relationships with colleagues are based on trust (“Trust”). The Member’s conduct was contrary to these principles.
10The Member engaged in intimidating and aggressive behaviour towards his principal and several colleagues. The Member’s conduct included: raising his voice at Person A, Person B and Person D; abruptly ending a meeting with Person A and shutting the door loudly behind him; stating that he was unwilling to work with Person D; pinning a complaint letter about him on the bulletin board behind his desk, which Person A believed was done to intimidate staff; and sending Person E intimidating and accusatory emails. The Member’s conduct made several of these colleagues feel threatened, fearful, and intimidated. For instance, even after attending a mediation meeting with the Member following his threatening intimidating behaviour towards her, Person B remained afraid of the Member and tried to avoid him whenever possible. Similarly, Person D felt flustered, intimidated, and was shaking following an interaction with the Member in which he raised his voice and stated that he was unwilling to work with her. Person D subsequently tried to avoid the Member. By engaging in intimidating, threatening and aggressive behaviour towards colleagues, the Member created a fearful and toxic environment which is incompatible with the principle that members must foster a safe and supportive learning environment.
11In addition to his intimidating, threatening and aggressive behaviour as described above, the Member also emptied boxes containing the personal contents of Person C and placed them on the floor, he disrupted and moved items on Person C’s desk and disrupted and defaced Person C’s religious table. The Member’s conduct made Person C extremely upset and brought her to her “breaking point” with the Member. Furthermore, the Member repeatedly interrupted an LTO teacher’s presentation to staff at a PA day meeting, which upset her and made her cry. The Panel finds that by engaging in such conduct, the Member was also disrespectful to his colleagues.
12Moreover, by failing to respond to emails from Person A and refusing to adhere to her requests around his conduct in the core classroom, the Member breached the trust which his administrator had placed in him. The Member’s conduct therefore fell below the professional and ethical standards of the profession.
13The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Subsection 264(1)(d) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school. In addition to the Member’s intimidating, aggressive and disrespectful behaviour described above, the Member also prevented School and Board staff from using the core classroom and discouraged their use of the room by, among other things, making it uncomfortable for them to use it. Furthermore, the Member failed to complete student-related documentation accurately, in a timely manner or at all, which negatively impacted his colleagues’ ability to perform their jobs. By engaging in such conduct, the Member did not contribute to a collaborative and cooperative school environment. Instead, his behaviour made it challenging for his colleagues and supervisor to work with him and generally contributed to an unpleasant work environment. The Member therefore failed to fulfil his duties as a teacher.
14The Member committed acts which 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 be composed, respectful and professional in their professional practice. They must exercise restraint and resolve conflicts professionally. The Member did the opposite by engaging in intimidating and disrespectful behaviour towards his principal and colleagues. The Member also damaged the core room by pulling down curtains and a curtain rod. Such conduct demonstrates significant moral failing and a lack of professional judgment by the Member. There is no place for such behaviour in the school community.
15The Panel finds that 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 and confidence in the teaching profession is eroded when teachers engage in intimidating and threatening behaviour in a school environment.
F. PENALTY Decision
16The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on November 8, 2022, 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 (2) 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 the Member returning to teaching in the province of Ontario, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding conflict resolution and professional ethics, 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 thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
17The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Vandenberg, 2018 ONOCT 15; Ontario College of Teachers v. Reid, 2021 ONOCT 126; Ontario College of Teachers v. DeSantis, 2021 ONOCT 82; and, Ontario College of Teachers v. Brown, 2021 ONOCT 58.
18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. Firstly, the Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment. He engaged in intimidating and bullying behaviour towards several colleagues and his principal over a period of approximately two years. Secondly, the Member’s conduct made his co-workers feel extremely upset and flustered, at times to the point of crying, and made a couple of his colleagues avoid contact with him. Thirdly, there was an inherent power imbalance between the Member and some of his junior colleagues such as Person B (a female Educational Assistant) and Person E (the School Custodian). Finally, the Member’s bullying behaviour was mainly directed at his female colleagues. 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.
19The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated intimidating and disrespectful behaviour towards his co-workers warrants a reprimand. Members must behave professionally and respectfully with colleagues. They must also contribute to a safe and collegial work environment. The Member repeatedly failed to do so. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
20Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, 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 will begin on November 23, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
21The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding conflict resolution and professional ethics 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 colleagues and administrators, should he return to teaching in Ontario. The coursework must provide the Member with a clear understanding of how to resolve conflicts with his peers using peaceful and professional means.
22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: November 9, 2022
Alain Martel, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Yasser Leheta, OCT Member, Discipline Panel