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
Marc-André Coulombe, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MARC-ANDRÉ COULOMBE (REGISTRATION #422559)
PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair Pascale Evans, OCT Élaine Legault
HEARD: December 12, 2022
Christine Lonsdale, for Ontario College of Teachers Marc-André Coulombe was not represented 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.
1On December 12, 2022, a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) conducted an electronic proceeding, pursuant to rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Marc-André Coulombe (the "Member") was not in attendance for 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 July 20, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Marc-André Coulombe 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);
b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
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).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
5Counsel for the College presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
Marc-André Coulombe is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached as “Appendix A” is a copy of the College’s Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (the “Board”) as a teacher at École [XXX] (the “School”) in [XXX] Ontario.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class. During the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class. During the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 3 was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class.
On May 23, 2018, the Member was angry and frustrated because a number of students had not handed in their assignments even though he had given them an extra day to finish them. Student 1 apparently explained that because of a difficult family situation, she had not been able to print out her assignments at home and asked the Member if he had ever experienced anything like that.
In response to Student 1, the Member replied, “My father died when I was 14 years old. Anything else you want to know about my parents? I’ll tell you everything.” The Member was angry and said that Student 1 was insolent. The Member acknowledges that he ought not to have made that remark.
Student 1 then started crying and feeling unwell. She raised her hand for permission to go to the washroom to throw up. The Member refused. Eventually, he allowed Student 1 to do so. The Member acknowledges that he ought not to have refused Student 1 permission to go to the washroom. The incident adversely affected the students.
During the same class on May 23, 2018, Student 2 had gone to another room, with other students, to print out his assignments. After Student 2 submitted his assignment, the Member told him he had to stay in another room. Student 2 started crying in the hallway. This incident adversely affected Student 2.
During the same class on May 23, 2018, the Member used an inappropriate tone when speaking to the students, which he acknowledges he ought not to have done.
Following the incidents on May 23, 2018, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a five-day suspension. Attached as “Appendix B” is a copy of the disciplinary letter dated June 13, 2018.
On June 6, 2018, Student 3 reported an incident concerning her teacher to the Vice-Principal. The Member lost his temper with Student 3 because she was eating a snack in class, which was allowed. The Member used an inappropriate tone with Student 3 and said in front of the class:
a) that she was rude and bad-mannered;
b) that she treated people badly;
c) that she was always mean to her friends;
d) that she was irresponsible and disrespectful;
e) that she did nothing in class.
Student 3 started crying and left the classroom. The Member acknowledges that he ought not to have used that tone or made those remarks. The June 6, 2018 incident adversely affected Student 3.
Following the incidents on June 6, 2018, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a 10-day suspension. Attached as “Appendix C” is a copy of the disciplinary letter dated June 22, 2018.
On June 15, 2018, the Member met with the Board to discuss the June 6 incident. Afterwards, he discussed the meeting with two colleagues, and expressed his frustration. He hit the back of a chair in front of colleagues and loudly said something to the effect of “Fuck, I’ve had it.”
In response to the June 2018 incidents, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a 30-day suspension. Attached as “Appendix D” is a copy of the disciplinary letter dated September 4, 2018.
In October 2018, the Member took extended sick leave. He resigned from his position with the Board effective May 6, 2022.
Prior Discipline History
- On October 16, 2019, the Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct with regard to some incidents that took place in May 2015 and during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic years, when the Member was teaching at the School. Attached as “Appendix E” is a copy of the Discipline Committee decision dated October 16, 2019.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admits, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts referred to above (the "Uncontested Facts").
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations against him, concerning breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document, the Member states that:
a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against him;
b) he understands that by signing this document, he consents to the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee, and agrees that the Committee can accept the facts as accurate for the purposes of this proceeding;
c) he is pleading no contest to the findings by the College that the Uncontested Facts and allegations constitute professional misconduct as described in this document, and agrees that the Discipline Committee may make this finding without a hearing;
d) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
e) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to present evidence relating to the Committee’s findings;
f) he does not intend to present evidence as to the order to be made by the Committee based on its findings and conclusions in accordance with this Statement of Uncontested Facts;
g) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the College’s official publication;
h) he understands that any agreement between the College and himself with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
i) he understands that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Act, 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 aforementioned Uncontested Facts and plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on December 12, 2022 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. 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’s conduct was unprofessional on numerous occasions. It included making inappropriate remarks and using an inappropriate tone with students.
8The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5). The expectations of teachers in their professional practice include dedication in their care and commitment to students. They are to treat students equitably and with respect and be sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning (Commitment to Students and Student Learning). Members are also expected to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities (Leadership in Learning Communities). The Member failed to meet these expectations.
9On multiple occasions, the Member was angry and frustrated in class and made inappropriate remarks to students. He also used an inappropriate tone with students. Furthermore, he would not immediately allow Student 1, who was crying and feeling unwell, to go to the washroom to throw up. The Member’s conduct adversely affected the students. By acting in this manner, the Member demonstrated a lack of commitment to his students’ well-being instead of dedication to them, and he was disrespectful to them. In addition, after the meeting on June 15, 2018, the Member expressed his frustration. He hit the back of a chair in front of colleagues and loudly said something to the effect of “Fuck, I’ve had it.” The Panel finds that by frequently being angry, frustrated and violent in the practice of his profession, the Member created a frightening and intimidating learning environment. Such conduct is contrary to the expectation that teachers create a safe and supportive environment for learning. The Member’s conduct thus failed to comply with the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession.
10The Member abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). In addition to being angry and frustrated, the Member made a number of inappropriate remarks to students. For example, Student 1 explained that due to her difficult family situation, she had not been able to print out her assignments, and asked the Member if he had ever experienced anything like that. Instead of being sensitive to her situation, the Member belittled her explanation and replied, in what the Panel presumes was a sarcastic tone, “[…] Anything else you want to know about my parents? I’ll tell you everything.” In addition, he was angry and said that Student 1 was insolent. He also told Student 3 in front of the class, in an inappropriate tone, that she was rude and bad-mannered, which would have been hurtful and humiliating for her. Teachers must always keep their composure and treat their students with sensitivity and respect. By losing his temper, making inappropriate, sarcastic and hurtful remarks and using an inappropriate tone with students, the Member abused them verbally.
11The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). In addition to behaving repeatedly in the inappropriate manner described above, the Member lost his temper with Student 3 because she was eating a snack in class, which was allowed. He also told Student 2 that he had to stay in another room, after the student had submitted his assignment. Given the power imbalance between the Member and his students, the Member’s conduct would have had an adverse psychological or emotional effect on them. In the case before us, the uncontested facts show that the Member’s conduct did in fact adversely affect the students, particularly Students 1, 2 and 3. Students 2 and 3 started crying and Student 3 left the classroom. The Panel therefore finds that the Member abused students psychologically or emotionally.
12The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Clause 264(1)(b) stipulates that “It is the duty of a teacher… to encourage the pupils in the pursuit of learning.” Through his inappropriate conduct, specifically his disrespectful, humiliating and sarcastic remarks to students, which had an adverse effect on them, the Member discouraged their pursuit of learning. Student 3 even left the classroom because she was upset by the Member’s conduct towards her. Clause 264(1)(c) is generally interpreted to mean that teachers are to set a good example for students. Instead of modelling restraint, the Member frequently lost his temper with the students and used an inappropriate tone with them, thus setting a poor example and failing in his obligations as a teacher.
13The Member 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). Teachers must always use appropriate methods of classroom management and control their anger and frustration, even in challenging situations. It was unacceptable for the Member to lose his temper with the students on numerous occasions, make inappropriate and disrespectful remarks and use an inappropriate tone with them, and to vent his frustration violently in front of his colleagues. Such conduct demonstrates significant moral and professional failings on his part.
14Lastly, the Member’s conduct as described above is unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Through such conduct as making inappropriate remarks and using an inappropriate tone with students, the Member damaged the reputation of the teaching profession and undermined student, parental and public trust 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 December 12, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the public register;
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of six (6) months, as of the 15th calendar day following the decision and order of the Discipline Committee in 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 or resuming a position for which a Certificate of Qualification is required and within 12 months of beginning such a position, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding the management of his own behaviour in the classroom and the resulting impact on the learning environment, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the 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 and objectives of the course to be undertaken by the Member;
b) Within 30 days of his completion of the course referred to in paragraph (a) above, the Member shall provide written evidence to the Registrar:
(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 interest1. The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither too harsh nor too lenient such that it would 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. Thompson, 2020 ONOCT 133, Ontario College of Teachers v. Chéry, 2016 ONOCT 73 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Armstrong, 2019 ONOCT 49 (Decision on Penalty, Reasons for Decision and Order).
17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (1) the fact that the Member repeatedly engaged in inappropriate conduct targeting a number of students; (2) the fact that his conduct adversely affected a number of students; and (3) the fact that he had already been disciplined by his school board in 2017 for similar lapses (Exhibit 2, Appendix E, page 27). The mitigating factor is that the Member acknowledged his professional misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is unlikely to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
18The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand for engaging in inappropriate conduct on numerous occasions despite warnings from the Board. Members of the teaching profession are expected to keep their composure even in challenging situations. They are not to lose their temper with students nor engage in violent and intimidating behaviour in a school environment, as the Member did repeatedly. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly express its concerns to the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the public register is important, as it will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession. The Panel accedes to the parties’ preference for a written reprimand.
19In view of the gravity of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. Although the prior cases presented differ factually from this case in some ways, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is nonetheless similar and confirms that a suspension of the certificate is warranted. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that this kind of professional misconduct is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will be suspended as of December 27, 2022; that is, 15 days after the decision and order of the Panel.
20The Panel finds that the course on self-management in the classroom and its impact on the academic environment will assist with the Member’s rehabilitation, should he decide to return to teaching. It will remind him of his obligations as a teacher and help him to make better decisions in his professional practice.
21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
December 14, 2022
Alain Martel, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Pascale Evans, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.