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
Ryan David Ibbott, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
RYAN DAVID IBBOTT (REGISTRATION #278892)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Andrew Glenny Wanda Percival, OCT
HEARD: January 25, 2022
Noam Uri, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for Ryan David Ibbott Rebecca Durcan, 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 January 25, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Ryan David Ibbott (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. College Counsel also informed the Panel that the parties had agreed to hold a single hearing with respect to the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing dated May 21, 2019 (Exhibit 1) and the Notice of Hearing dated February 3, 2020 (Exhibit 2). As a result, pursuant to subsection 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, the Panel heard the proceedings involving the allegations set out in both Notices of Hearing at the same time.
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 May 21, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Ryan David Ibbott 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 signed or issued, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(c) 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).
5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 3, 2020 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Ryan David Ibbott 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);2
(b) he signed or issued, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12);
(c) he falsified a record relating to the member’s professional responsibilities, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(13);3
(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
6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 3), which provides the following:
Ryan David Ibbott 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 Halton District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Oakville, Ontario and as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “Night School”) in Burlington, Ontario.
Between December 2013 and September 2016, the Member:
(a) submitted health benefit claims for reimbursement under his group insurance benefits certificate which he ought to have known were ineligible;
(b) submitted health benefit claims for reimbursement under his spouse’s group insurance benefits certificate which he ought to have known were ineligible; and
(c) received payment in the amount of about $23,508.80 from Manulife Financial Group for 53 insurance claims submitted that were ineligible for services totalling 152 service dates.
On or about March 15, 2017, the Member reached out to his Insurer as he identified that claims had been improperly submitted, although approved by the Insurer. The Member sought to rectify this issue and offered to make a payment back to the Insurer for ineligible claims. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of some of the Member’s email correspondence with this Insurer.
On November 14, 2017, the Board and the Member entered into Minutes of Settlement. The Member was suspended for twenty-five days without pay. The Member agreed to pay back the $23,508.80. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Minutes of Settlement dated November 14, 2017.
On or about November 22, 2017, the Member paid back the amount in full.
In or around September 2018, the Member changed a [XXX] course to a [XXX] course without the appropriate approval.
In or around September 2018, the Member enrolled students in a [XXX} course taught by the Member at the School, when he ought to have known that they would not be eligible to receive credit for the proposed course.
In or around September 2018, the Member enrolled students in a [XXX] night course taught by the Member at the Night School, when he ought to have known that they would not be eligible to receive credit for the proposed course.
In or around October 2018 or November 2018, the Member responded to an email from the [XXX] secretary at the Night School while he was administratively suspended. The Member had been directed not to have any contact with staff and students of the Board.
In or around October 2018 or November 2018, the Member submitted grades to the Night School for students in the Member’s night [XXX] course as requested by the Board. The submitted grades were based on work the students had completed in approximately the first four weeks of the semester before the Member was assigned home. The Board determined that the students had not completed sufficient work and that the Member did not complete an appropriate evaluation of the students.
On February 26, 2019, the Board and the Member entered into Minutes of Settlement. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Minutes of Settlement dated February 26, 2019.
Current Status
- The Member retired his membership with the Ontario College of Teachers effective November 1, 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(12), 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 without 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 find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
7Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing dated May 21, 2019,and paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Notice of Hearing dated February 3, 2020, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(13) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought as proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. In relation to the subsection 1(13) allegation, College Counsel stated that given the specific circumstances of this case, the parties have agreed to proceed with the subsection 1(12) allegation instead of subsection 1(13). The Panel granted these requests.
8Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on January 25, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(12), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 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 dishonest behaviour, which included submitting to his Insurer and receiving payment for many ineligible health benefit claims totalling $23,508.80.
10The Member signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to subsection 1(12) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member submitted ineligible health benefits claims for reimbursement to his Insurer. The Member ought to have known that the claims which he submitted contained false, improper or misleading statements as he subsequently reached out to his Insurer, identified that the claims had been improperly submitted and sought to rectify the issue. Moreover, College Counsel submitted that the Member also breached this provision by changing a [XXX] course to a [XXX] course without the appropriate approval, and by enrolling students in courses that the Member taught, for which they were ineligible to receive credit. The Panel accepts these submissions and finds that it can reasonably be inferred that by doing so, the Member issued in his professional capacity as a teacher, documents which he ought to have known contained a false or improper or misleading statement.
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 ethical standard of “Integrity”, which requires members to conduct themselves with “honesty, reliability and moral action”. In addition to the Member’s inappropriate behaviour described above, which included submitting ineligible health benefit claims to his Insurer, the Member also submitted grades based on insufficient work completed by students and did not complete appropriate student evaluations. The Panel finds that by doing so, the Member engaged in dishonest behaviour and hence demonstrated a lack of integrity. As such, his conduct fell below the ethical standards of the teaching profession.
12The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that members of the teaching profession must behave with integrity and serve as positive role models within their school communities. The Member’s conduct was antithetical to these principles. By engaging in dishonest conduct, the Member acted as a poor role model. As such, his conduct was at odds with his duties as a member of the teaching 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. Disgraceful and dishonourable conduct includes conduct that is immoral or dishonest. It is unacceptable for a teacher, who holds a trusted and influential position within their community, to engage in the type of dishonest conduct described above. Such conduct casts doubt on the Member’s moral ability to practise the profession. The Member also demonstrated poor professional judgment by responding to an email from the [XXX] secretary while he was suspended, contrary to the clear directions he had received. Members of the teaching profession should always behave honorably and professionally in their school communities, which the Member repeatedly failed to do. As such, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct can properly be 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. Members who engage in dishonest behaviour undermine the reputation of the teaching profession and breach the trust that the public places in the profession.
F. PENALTY Decision
15The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on January 25, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a reprimand in writing 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 10 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 commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding ethics and student assessment and evaluation, 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. Paik, 2019 ONOCT 83, Ontario College of Teachers v. Mackenzie, 2019 ONOCT 22, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Jones, 2017 ONOCT 7.
17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (1) the prolonged duration of the Member’s misconduct; (2) the repeated nature of his dishonest behaviour; (3) the sheer volume of ineligible claims submitted (53 ineligible claims relating to 152 service dates); and (4) the substantial amount of the payments received, which totaled $23,508.80. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member took the initiative to reach out to the Insurer and paid back the amount of $23,508.80; he did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing; and he has not been the subject of College discipline 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 pattern of dishonest behaviour warrants a reprimand. Teachers should always behave ethically and act as positive role models, which the Member failed to do in this case. 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 misconduct, the Panel finds that a 10-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 deterrent, making it clear to members of the profession that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on February 9, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding ethics and student assessment and evaluation 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 his professional practice, should he return to the teaching profession.
21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 1, 2022
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Andrew Glenny Member, Discipline Panel
Wanda Percival, OCT Member, Discipline Panel