DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION
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
Roseline Marie-Christine Aline Dorcin, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
ROSELINE MARIE-CHRISTINE ALINE DORCIN (REGISTRATION #430863)
PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair Adam Dharsee, OCT Rebecca Zaretsky
HEARD: August 24, 2022
Ava Arbuck and Linette King, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Roseline Marie-Christine Aline Dorcin
Julie Maciura, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 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 August 24, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).
2Roseline Marie-Christine Aline Dorcin (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation.
3Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Daniela Spano (Exhibit 2) affirmed on August 23, 2022, to show that the Member had been informed of the allegations against her, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty and costs that could be sought by the College. In this affidavit, Ms. Spano, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, outlined her and her firm’s communications with the Member and provided proof of service of all required documents.
4Based on this affidavit, the Panel was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was aware of the allegations against her, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty and costs that could be sought by the College if a finding of misconduct was made. As such, the Panel was satisfied that the hearing could proceed in the absence of the Member.
5The Notice of Hearing explicitly states that the hearing can proceed in the absence of a party (as authorized by section 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act). The hearing proceeded on its merits approximately 40 minutes after the scheduled start time, but the Member did not appear. The Panel therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.
A. PUBLICATION ban
6The 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. OVERVIEW
7The College alleged that the Member had, a few days before the start of classes, advised the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) and the principal of Earl Haig Public School (the “School”) that she was not well and as such, could not return to work in September 2019. She then requested and received sick benefits from the Board during a portion of the 2019 fall semester. While investigating parents’ concerns that the Member was campaigning for a federal election during the 2019 summer, the Board discovered that the Member was employed by the English Montreal School Board (the “Montreal Board”) for the 2019-2020 school year. The College alleged that the Member abused the Board’s sick leave provisions in that she was teaching at the Montreal Board and thus clearly not actually sick. The College also alleged that the Member failed to provide proper medical documentation and information to the Board relevant to her medical condition and her absence from work and failed to meet with the Board as requested.
8The Panel’s task is to determine whether the facts alleged by the College have been proven on a balance of probabilities and if so, whether the Member’s conduct gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. For the reasons that follow, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in professional misconduct and contravened subsections 1(12), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
C. THE ALLEGATIONS
9The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated November 1, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Rosaline Marie-Christine Aline Dorcin is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she 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);
(b) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 321 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(c) she 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) she 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) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS
Roseline Marie-Christine Aline Dorcin is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Board. The Member was scheduled to teach Grade 4 French Immersion at the School for the 2019-2020 school year.
The Member failed to notify the Board in a timely manner that she would not return to her teaching position at the School in September 2019.
On or about August 29, 2019, the Member advised her Principal and the Board that she had been in a serious car accident and could not return to work in September 2019.
Despite the fact that the Member was scheduled to return to the School on or about September 3, 2019, between June 2019 and September 6, 2019, the Member participated in an election campaign in Montreal, Quebec, in which she ran to be nominated as the candidate for a political party in the federal election.
Between August 29, 2019 and November 2019, the Member requested and/or received sick leave benefits and/or pay from the Board when she was not suffering from any relevant health issues that would prevent her from teaching at the School.
Between August 29, 2019 and November 14, 2019, the Member:
(a) failed to provide medical documentation that adequately and/or accurately reflected her condition;
(b) failed to provide information to the Board relevant to her absence from work;
(c) failed to meet with Board officials as requested including on a date she agreed to attend, and/or failed to respond to the Board’s requests to explain why she was unable to attend.
The Member accepted a contract and/or worked as a teacher for the English Montreal School Board during the 2019-2020 school year when she was scheduled to teach for the Board, and/or while receiving sick pay from the Board.
The Board terminated the Member’s employment, effective November 15, 2019.
D. THE MEMBER’S PLEA
10As the Member was not present, the Panel proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
E. THE EVIDENCE
11The College presented oral, affidavit and documentary evidence to prove the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The following is a brief summary of the College’s evidence. Relevant portions of this evidence are set out in greater detail, as needed, in the Panel’s reasons for their decision below.
12As the Member chose not to participate in the hearing, no evidence was presented in her defence.
(1) Oral Evidence
13The College called one witness, Marla Fowler. At the time of the allegations, Ms. Fowler was the Manager of Labour Relations and Employee Assistance at the Board.
(a) Marla Fowler
14As the Manager of Labour Relations and Employee Assistance at the Board, Ms. Fowler was responsible for managing three departments, including the investigations department. Ms. Fowler testified about her investigation into allegations about the Member’s adherence to the Board’s policies, procedures and requests for medical information and the Member’s claims regarding her ability to work in 2019. Ms. Fowler presented the Panel with her completed investigation report, which included her findings (Exhibit 4).
(2) Affidavit Evidence
(a) Michelle Lawrence
15Michelle Lawrence’s affidavit, affirmed on August 12, 2022 (Exhibit 5) was presented to the Panel during the hearing.
16Ms. Lawrence is a Senior Manager in Employee Services at the Board. In this role, she had access to and reviewed the Board’s Human Resources personnel file regarding the Member and therefore, had knowledge of the Member’s employment history with the Board.
(b) Ann Watson
17Ann Watson’s affidavit, affirmed on August 22, 2022 (Exhibit 6) was presented to the Panel during the hearing.
18Ms. Watson is the Director of Human Resources at the Montreal Board. She had access to and reviewed the Montreal Board’s records and personnel file of the Member, and therefore had knowledge of the Member’s employment history with the Montreal Board.
F. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
19College Counsel submitted that the evidence presented to the Panel proves the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities.
20College Counsel reviewed the uncontradicted evidence for the Panel, including Ms. Fowler’s testimony and investigation report that detailed the Member’s communications with the Board advising that she would not be returning to teach at the Board during the 2019-2020 school year due to her injury, as well as Ms. Fowler later determining that the Member was teaching at a school in Montreal while simultaneously receiving sick benefits from the Board. College Counsel also reviewed Ms. Lawrence and Ms. Watson’s affidavits, which confirmed the following: the Member was assigned to teach Grade 4 French Immersion at the School for the 2019-2020 school year; and the Member claimed that she was sick but taught at St. Monica Elementary School in Montreal in 2019. As such, College Counsel submitted that the Panel should find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct in abusing the benefits of sick leave.
G. DECISION ON FINDING
(1) Onus and standard of proof
21The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.
(2) Decision
22Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, as well as the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(12), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
H. REASONS FOR DECISION
23The Panel carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented by College Counsel. The following reasons comment only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations outlined in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel first sets out its factual findings and then explains why these facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.
24In evaluating Ms. Fowler’s testimony, the Panel understands that it can accept all, some, or none of her evidence. When deciding how much of a witness’ evidence to accept, the Panel can rely on logic, common sense and experience, but has also considered the witness’ ability to observe and recall the events; whether the witness has an interest in the outcome of the hearing that may cloud their recollection; the plausibility or reasonability of the evidence; and the internal and external consistency of their testimony.
25The Panel is mindful that Ms. Fowler relied heavily on the investigation report throughout her testimony. Ms. Fowler stated that she did have independent recollection of the investigation, but College Counsel did not ask her to elaborate prior to introducing the investigation report, and rather allowed Ms. Fowler to rely heavily on the investigation report to directly guide her testimony. The Panel finds that Ms. Fowler did not present any evidence that she had a strong, independent recollection of the steps that she took in the investigation.
26The Panel also notes that aside from Ms. Fowler’s email communications with the Member and her union representative about arranging a meeting after the investigation, she did not directly speak to, correspond with, or see the Member throughout the investigation. The Panel is mindful of the fact that the extent of Ms. Fowler’s participation during the investigation is limited to reviewing email correspondence that others had with the Member, hiring the investigators, reviewing their reports and completing the final investigation report.
27Despite these concerns, the Panel does place full weight on Ms. Fowler’s evidence given that it was unchallenged and given that she documented the steps she took in her investigation shortly after taking those steps. The Panel also found that Ms. Fowler was a credible witness and that her testimony was clearly articulated. Her demeanor and presentation were clear when she recounted her evidence and the steps she took during the investigation into the Member. She was direct and forthright in her responses.
(1) Factual Findings
(a) The School expected and understood the Member to teach Grade 4 French Immersion at the School for the 2019-2020 school year.
28Based on the uncontradicted evidence provided by Ms. Fowler’s testimony and Ms. Lawrence’s affidavit, the Panel found that the Member was employed by the School and was scheduled to teach Grade 4 French Immersion at the School for the 2019-2020 school year. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that the Member had been employed by the School since 2001 and had been on a “4 over 5 leave of absence” during the 2018-2019 school year.
29The Panel accepted Ms. Fowler’s evidence that the Member gave the School the impression that she ultimately expected to return to the School in 2019, when she informed the School on August 29, 2019 that she was medically unfit to report to work because of her car accident and then sought to use her sick benefits during the 2019 semester (Exhibit 4, Appendix 19). The Member’s attempts to secure her sick benefits by subsequently providing the Board with two medical notes and information about her (in)ability to book doctors’ appointments further led to the Panel’s understanding that the Member intended to continue to teach at the Board during the 2019-2020 school year. The Member’s correspondence as mentioned above led to the Board’s reasonable conclusion that the Member intended to return to the School for the 2019-2020 school year.
30The Panel notes that the Member did not advise the School that she was going to be returning for the 2019-2020 school year by the April 1, 2019 deadline set out in the Collective Agreement, and the School had not put her on the payroll for September 2019. The Board could have reasonably concluded that the Member was not returning and had the option of making alternative arrangements for a substitute teacher earlier than August 29, 2019. However, in the absence of the Member attending the hearing and making such submissions, the Panel accepts the College’s evidence that the School expected the Member to return for the 2019-2020 school year and that the Member eventually confirmed that understanding when she corresponded with the School on August 29, 2019 and subsequently sought sick benefits in the fall of 2019.
(b) The Member failed to notify the Board in a timely manner that she would not return to her teaching position at the School in September 2019.
31The Panel accepted the College’s uncontradicted evidence that the Member first informed the School on August 29, 2019, just a few days prior to the start of school, that she would not be able to return to work, due to her injury from her car accident. The Member ought to have known that she was unable to return to work earlier than August 29, 2019 and should have notified the Board earlier. The Panel is mindful that the Member could have had legitimate reasons as to why she did not contact the Board earlier, but no evidence was presented in her defense.
32The evidence before the Panel demonstrates that the Member was indeed involved in a car accident on April 29, 2019 but that she resumed teaching as early as May 2019 for the Montreal Board (Exhibit 4). Although College Counsel tendered multiple exhibits regarding the Member’s social media activity, the Panel does not find that the Member’s participation in her election campaign (including her social media presence) was relevant to her ability to teach and assess her ability to teach (as the College submitted). One can be unable to teach but still be active on social media; social media activity is not indicative of one’s ability to teach. Secondly, the Panel does not find that the Member’s social media posts were issued in her professional capacity as a teacher. However, the fact that the Member taught in May and June 2019 (in Montreal) does lead the Panel to find that she was able to assess her ability to teach at this time and could have notified the Board about her injury, at the very least. The Panel is mindful of the possibility that the Member’s ability to teach or to assess her ability to teach could have changed in the summer. However, absent any evidence to demonstrate that or the nature of the Member’s injury to her right wrist, which the Panel does not find would have prevented the Member from assessing her ability to teach, the Panel believes the Member could have notified the Board earlier. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Member failed to notify the Board in a timely manner that she would not return to her teaching position at the School in September 2019.
33College Counsel did not present any evidence as to what “timely manner” entailed but the Panel accepts that the Member’s notification on August 29, 2019 was untimely as it was three days before school was set to begin and was at the cusp of the long weekend.
(c) The Member requested and received sick leave benefits from the Board.
34The Panel accepted the College’s uncontradicted evidence that the Member requested sick leave benefits in the form of sick days from the Board since the beginning of September 2019 (Exhibit 4, Appendix 19). Based on Ms. Lawrence’s affidavit and Ms. Fowler’s testimony, the Panel concluded that the Member continued to receive sick benefits until the termination of her employment on November 15, 2019 (Exhibit 5).
(d) The Member worked for the Montreal Board during the 2019-2020 school year, when she was scheduled to teach for the Board and while she was receiving sick pay from the Board.
35The Panel accepted Ms. Watson’s affidavit, which confirmed that the Member accepted a teaching assignment to teach a Grade 5/6 class at St. Monica Elementary School in Montreal from September 9, 2019 to June 30, 2020 (Exhibit 6). Based on Ms. Fowler’s testimony and surveillance reports on October 24, 25, and 29, 2019 and November 11-13, 2019, the Panel found that the Member did work at St. Monica Elementary School during the 2019 semester.
36During this time that the Member was working in Montreal, she purported to be unable to teach at the Board due to her car accident and she received sick benefits from the Board, as outlined above.
(e) The Member failed to provide medical documentation to the Board, as requested.
37The Panel found that although the Member provided two medical notes to the Board (Exhibit 4, Appendix 9) within a reasonable amount of time, the Member failed to provide further medical documentation as requested by the Board, namely a questionnaire for her physician to complete. On September 23, 2019, Tessa Gibbs, the Disability Management Coordinator for the Board, emailed the Member with a questionnaire for her physician to complete about the Member’s medical conditions and abilities (Exhibit 4, Appendix 11). On October 14, 2019, the Member replied that she sent the forms to be completed by her physician (Exhibit 4, Appendix 11). On October 16, 2019, Ms. Gibbs reminded the Member to have her physician complete the questionnaire and return it to the Board by October 25, 2019 (Exhibit 4, Appendix 17). The Member never responded with a completed questionnaire.
38Although the Panel found that the Member failed to provide documentation to the Board, namely the questionnaire for her physician to complete, the Panel does not find that this substantiates any of the allegations. It should be noted that although College Counsel presented evidence that the Member did fail to provide documentation as a factual finding, College Counsel did not allege or apply this failing to any of the heads of misconduct as alleged. The College did not discharge its onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the Member’s failure to provide the questionnaire to the Board constituted professional misconduct.
(f) The Member failed to meet with Board officials as requested.
39The Panel accepted that the Member, her union representative and the Board had corresponded to arrange a time to meet to discuss the Member’s absence from the School. On November 8 and 9, 2019, the Member’s union representative, Sonia Ellis-Seguin of Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario advised that the Member was unable to travel to Toronto and asked for accommodations to meet via telephone or video conference (Exhibit 4, Appendix 30, 32). The Board refused the Member’s request for accommodations based solely on the Member’s email to the Board, in which the Member stated that she would be attending the meeting with a lawyer but did not confirm whether she needed accommodations (Exhibit 4, Appendix 31, 32). The in-person meeting was scheduled for November 14, 2019 and the Member confirmed her attendance (Exhibit 4, Appendix 32). The Member did not attend because of a serious medical issue (Exhibit 4, Appendix 32). Ms. Fowler admitted that she did not know any more details about why the Member did not attend nor did she inquire for further explanation.
40The Panel finds that the Member did not meet with the Board as requested. However, there is insufficient evidence presented that would lead the Panel to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that there was anything inappropriate about the Member failing to meet with the Board such that her failure to do so could be considered professional misconduct. Ms. Ellis-Seguin informed Ms. Fowler that the Member would not be able to attend the meeting due to a serious medical emergency. No evidence was presented to suggest otherwise. Ms. Fowler had the opportunity to inquire further but chose not to, and testified that she did not know the nature of the medical issue. The College did not discharge its onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the Member’s failure to meet with the Board constituted professional misconduct. Moreover, the Panel does not find that the Member failed to respond to the Board’s inquiries for an explanation, as there was no evidence that the Board made such inquiries.
(2) Legal Conclusions
(a) The Member 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).
41The Panel found that the Member knew or ought to have known that her medical notes stating that she cannot work and her correspondence with the School’s Principal, Jonathan Root, and the Board, stating that she was unable to teach at the School contained false, improper or misleading statements.
42The Panel found that the medical notes were issued by the Member in her professional capacity, as they were provided in response to Mr. Root’s request for a medical note regarding her ability to teach for the School in the 2019-2020 school year. Although the medical notes were not signed personally by the Member, she “issued” those notes to the Board in her professional capacity with respect to her professional duties to the School.
43On September 8, 2019, the Member presented the first medical note to Mr. Root (Exhibit 4, Appendix 9). This medical note dated September 3, 2019 advised that the Member is to stay away from work for 10 days because of her right wrist pain. It gave the impression that the Member could not work until September 13, 2019. The Member ought to have known that it was false, improper and misleading because she accepted a teaching assignment for the 2019-2020 school year with the Montreal Board, effective September 9, 2019. Her actions directly contradicted the medical note, which stated that she could not work for medical reasons until September 13, 2019.
44The Panel also finds that the second medical note dated September 17, 2019 contained information that the Member should have known was false, improper and misleading, as it stated that she should be excused from work (i.e. teaching) for four months due to her right wrist injury (Exhibit 4, Appendix 9, 16, 23). From this medical note, it was expected that the Member would be medically excused from working until at least January 2020. However, at this time, the Member was already employed by the Montreal Board and was teaching a grade 5/6 class at St. Monica Elementary School, and had been doing so since September 9, 2019 (Exhibit 6). The Investigation Reports from Xpera Investigations further confirmed that the Member was at the School, supervising students on October 24, 25, 29, and November 11-13, 2019 (Exhibit 4, Appendix 24 and 33). Although there was no surveillance of the Member actually teaching inside St. Monica Elementary School, there were multiple occasions where she was in the school playground, supervising students and where she entered the school in the morning and exited after school had ended. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Panel to conclude that the Member was teaching during this time despite stating that she could not work until January 2020 in her medical note. She ought to have known that the medical note stating that she could not work for four months was false, improper and misleading.
45Likewise, the Member exchanged email correspondence with Mr. Root about her medical notes that she knew or ought to have known contained false, improper and misleading statements. On August 29, 2019, the Member emailed the Board and Mr. Root that she would not be able to return to the School in September due to her car accident and that she would have a monthly reassessment (Exhibit 4, Appendix 19). She ought to have known that this was false, improper and misleading. The Panel does not doubt that the Member suffered a car accident; however, the Member implied that she could not teach in September due to her car accident, which is false because she taught for the Montreal Board in May and June 2019 and again from September 9, 2019 until she was placed on leave on November 13, 2019.
46The Panel finds that the Member’s email correspondence to the Board, seeking to use her sick days for the first two weeks of September was also misleading, as it suggested that she was too ill to teach for the Board when in fact, the Member was teaching at the Montreal Board at this time (Exhibit 4, Appendix 19).
47On September 3, 4, and 8, 2019, the Member emailed her medical note dated September 3, 2019 to the School and the Board and corresponded with them about resending the note because it was illegible (Exhibit 4, Appendix 20, 21). She further continued to update the School and the Board about her health, again contributing to the false narrative that she was too ill to teach (Exhibit 4, Appendix 22), which was not true because she had accepted a teaching contract with the Montreal Board for the 2019-2020 school year and in fact, had already started teaching by this time.
48On October 6, 7, 14, and 15, 2019, the Member emailed the Board about the medical appointments she had booked to complete the medical documentation necessary to support her medical leave from the Board, which was also misleading as it gave the impression that she was seeking medical leave in good faith. This was false as she was actively working for another school board at this time (Exhibit 4, Appendix 11, 12, 15, 16, 17).
49College Counsel submitted that the pictures and Ms. Fowler’s description of the Investigation Report’s videos lead to the conclusion that the Member’s statements were false or misleading because they allegedly showed the Member’s range of motion. The Panel does not accept these submissions; College Counsel only provided pictures and did not present any video evidence showing the Member’s range of movement with regards to her right wrist. The Panel does not find College Counsel’s submissions to be persuasive. Rather, the Panel finds that the Member issued statements that she knew were false or misleading in her medical notes and correspondence with the School and Board, based on the more cogent and uncontradicted evidence that the Member was working for the Montreal Board during or about the time that she issued such statements.
(b) The Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14).
50This allegation refers to section 32 of the by-laws, which has since been renumbered as section 26 of the by-laws. This section of the by-laws sets out to the professional and ethical standards that members are expected to uphold. In particular, the Panel found that the Member failed to comply with the profession’s ethical standards, specifically integrity and trust, which embody fairness, openness and honesty. Members are expected to be fair, open and honest in their professional relationships to maintain trust and act with integrity in their professional commitments. The Member did not demonstrate responsibility and honesty when she failed to give adequate notice to the School about her decision to not return and when she fraudulently sought sick benefits from the Board when she was working and teaching for the Montreal Board. Her conduct demonstrated a flagrant disregard for students at the School who were left without a permanent teacher when school started. Her conduct also betrayed the trust of parents, her colleagues and the community when she abused her trusted position by concealing her other employment for her own personal gain through the receipt of sick benefits. The Member did not act with integrity and she was dishonest, and therefore failed to uphold the ethical standards expected of teachers.
(c) The Member 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)
51The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher as including a requirement to teach diligently and faithfully. The Member did not meet this requirement when she failed to provide adequate notice to the School and the Board that she was not going to be returning to teach for the 2019-2020 school year and when she was dishonest about being ill and seeking a medical leave from the Board. Her actions left the School and the Board to find a replacement teacher within a short period of time.
52The Panel accepted the emails of parents of the students as evidence of the community’s perception of how the Member’s students’ education would be impacted by her sudden absence. There was no evidence to suggest that the Member gave any thought to her students and their education, and her duty to teach them diligently and faithfully. Her actions to abandon her students and the school community with no regard to any potential prejudice to the students’ education and her duty to teach them falls well short of her obligations to comply with the Education Act. The Member’s dishonesty in claiming to be on a medical leave while accepting a job at another school demonstrated her unwillingness to prioritize her teaching position with the Board and her professional obligations to the students at the School. The Panel notes that teachers on a bona fide, valid sick leave are not expected to be responsible for what happens in their classroom; however, they should be mindful of how they can lessen any possible disadvantageous effects on students while they are away from the classroom.
53Subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act requires teachers to uphold various religious and moral values, including truth, justice, and loyalty. The Member’s behaviour was untruthful and unjust; it was demonstrative of an alarming lack of concern for her students’ well-being; and it was deceitful in that the Member obtained sick benefits from the Board under the pretense of being ill, but while working at the Montreal Board. By inappropriately using medical leave, the Member failed to exemplify these moral virtues and illustrated how disloyal she was to her students and dismissive of her duties to the School.
(d) The 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)
54The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. Disgraceful conduct casts doubt on the Member’s moral fitness and ability to discharge their higher duties expected by the community and the public. The Member’s misconduct was disgraceful, when she intentionally and repeatedly deceived the Board through multiple correspondences in order to obtain sick leave benefits despite being able to teach. Her deceit demonstrated significant moral failings and a lack of good judgment. The Panel also finds that the Member’s misconduct would reasonably be regarded as dishonourable, as it involved a moral failing in that the Member ought to have known that her actions were wrong. The Member’s misconduct was also unprofessional, as it showed a deliberate and flagrant disregard for her professional obligations and her duties to her students. In addition to good judgment, teachers are expected to behave as responsible adults. The Member failed to do so when she waited until only a few days before the start of school to notify the Board that she would not be able to return in September and when she deceived the Board, by stating that she was too sick to teach while having accepted a full-time teaching assignment with the Montreal Board at the same time. The Member’s conduct demonstrated extreme dishonesty towards her employer, the profession and the school community and therefore, could reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
(e) The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)
55The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s conduct in deceiving the Board showed an utter disregard for her professional and ethical obligations to the profession, her students and the public. Her conduct damaged the reputation of the teaching profession, as clearly evidenced by the emails to the School from parents of students (Exhibit 4, Appendix 6). The trust that the public places in teacher was eroded when the Member took advantage of her position of trust and abused the benefits that are afforded to her colleagues. The Member’s misconduct seriously undermined the reputation of the profession and therefore, was unbecoming a member.
I. PENALTY
56The Tribunals’ Office will schedule a subsequent date on which the Panel will hear the parties’ submissions with respect to penalty.
Date: November 23, 2022
Kimberley Westfall-Connor Chair, Discipline Panel
Adam Dharsee, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Rebecca Zaretsky Member, Discipline Panel