Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2022 ONOCT 118

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Hall 2022 ONOCT 118

Date: 2022-12-14

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

Kennedy Donald Joseph Hall, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

KENNEDY DONALD JOSEPH HALL (REGISTRATION #660356)

PANEL: Linda Staudt, OCT, Chair Rachelle Coleman Erin Durant

HEARD: November 9, 2022

Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers

No one appearing for Kennedy Donald Joseph Hall

Julie Maciura, 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 9, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Kennedy Donald Joseph Hall (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation. The Member attended immediately after the hearing for the delivery of his reprimand as agreed to by the parties. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing. Although the Member was not present to answer to the Panel’s plea inquiry, College Counsel presented a written plea inquiry from the Member (Exhibit 2) that acknowledges his understanding of what he is pleading to and the consequences of doing so, and affixes his signature, which was witnessed. The Panel was confident to proceed with the hearing in the Member’s absence and accepted the plea inquiry as voluntary and informed.

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 August 17, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Kennedy Donald Joseph Hall is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

(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 the 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. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Kennedy Donald Joseph Hall 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Huron Perth Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a Religion teacher at St. Michael Catholic Secondary School (the “School”) in Stratford, Ontario.

Inappropriate Comments made to Students

3. During the 2017-2018 academic year, at a graduation retreat for Grade 12 students, the Member gave a speech to the male students in which he talked about the importance of traditional gender roles and for the boys to embrace their masculinity. The Member expressed his concern that masculinity was being “squeezed out of young boys” who were being made to do feminine activities like make bracelets and sit quietly. The Member expressed concern about the influence of feminism as a contributing factor in the decline of “proper masculine behaviour”.

4. The Member further told the students, his belief, that men should work in gender appropriate occupations. One particular male student who was present at the retreat, and heard the Member’s speech, felt particularly upset and invalidated by the comments as he was training to become a dancer. He, and other students, understood the Member’s message as disapproval of male dancers.

5. The Member also talked about the importance of the male students being “real” men, who will stand at the head of the household and protect their future wives. The female students were encouraged to pray that a virtuous and righteous man would come along to make them happy. Some female students who heard this message felt degraded and insulted that they were being told that a strong marriage was more important for them than their career aspirations. They also felt that the Member was being insensitive and ignorant toward the School’s LGBTQ+ community for whom the School expressed its support.

The Member’s Social Media Posts

6. The Member wrote a book, titled “Terror of Demons – Reclaiming Traditional Catholic Masculinity”, which he cited and promoted through various social media platforms. The book, and the Member’s posts, include the following viewpoints:

(a) effeminacy in men, which the Member defines as a “reluctance to suffer due to an attachment to pleasure”, should be eradicated;

(b) men should wear suits and women should wear dresses;

(c) masculine and feminine shapes are exclusive to their genders and are “perfection”;

(d) describing a “rightly ordered household” which includes specific male and female duties;

(e) that men today have had absent and/or effeminate fathers, and that their mothers, because of “the errors of feminism”, have dominated this “disordered home” preventing young men from transitioning to manhood. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of this excerpt from the Member’s book; and

(f) that men are basically like recovering alcoholics when it comes to lust and that, therefore, they should avoid fitness clubs where women wear “appalling” workout attire that will lead men to sin. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Member’s article titled, “How to Workout”.

7. The Member posted a video on Twitter in which, in the context of a conversation discussing the story of creation, he says, “no matter how you slice it, women are made to please”. He then went on to discuss why men will treat women problematically if they dress immodestly given the lack of self control of unvirtuous men. Viewers of the Member’s video were disturbed about how statements like this fuel rape culture stereotypes.

8. On November 26, 2019, the Member wrote an article on the public Fatima Center website, about “…the Biblical wisdom of the headship of man in his home, and the submission of woman to her husband. Once again, our world may reject this as it has been infected by the festering disease of feminism, but it is nonetheless the right order by which God Himself ordained things.”

9. On December 4, 2019, the Member cited a tweet saying, “Scientists in new study: The researchers suggest that same-sex behaviour is bound up in the very origins of animal sex. It hasn’t had to continually re-evolve.” The Member responded to the tweet by writing, “New study: Many animals also eat feces, eat their young, kill their children, eat their own vomit, eat garbage, fall out of trees while sleeping, and growl at their own reflection. Experts are still waiting to see how we can justify these behaviours in humans. Stay tuned.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the original tweet and the Member’s response.

10. On November 20, 2019, the Member tweeted, “It’s a fun reality that my wife has to ask me to make sure the public library doesn’t have drag queen reading hour if she wants to take the kids there. Catholics need to open their own libraries.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Member’s tweet.

11. In a Twitter post on December 17, 2019, the Member identified his status as a teacher in the Catholic school system.

12. The Member’s posts and statements were available to the public on his Twitter account, accessible YouTube podcasts, his posts on public Facebook pages and on the Fatima Centre website. In response to the Member’s posts, members of the community used a Facebook group called Stratford Connect, to share their outrage and disappointment at the views being expressed by the Member and the fact that he was still teaching students.

13. The Board was inundated with complaints about the Member’s social media posts from parents of current students at the School, student alumni, and current students who had read the Member’s posts and described them as misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic and racist. They expressed their concerns that the Member was creating an unsafe and uncomfortable learning environment for students at the School.

14. The Member tendered his resignation from his teaching position with the Board effective February 11, 2022.

15. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Professional Advisory on Maintaining Professionalism – Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media which was in effect during the relevant time period.

Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment

16. On October 11, 2022, the Member signed an Undertaking resigning his membership in the Ontario College of Teachers with immediate effect. The Member also undertook not to teach in any public or private school in Ontario and not to seek reinstatement of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the Member’s signed Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment.

GUILTY PLEA

17. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

18. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

20. In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 9, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 16 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of communicating his beliefs about gender roles and identities in an intolerant and discriminatory manner against those who do not conform with his beliefs.

8The Panel found that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused students, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. When the Member delivered a speech to students, he shared his views that there was “proper masculine behaviour” and that men should work in gender-appropriate occupations, stand at the head of the household and protect their future wives. He also wrote a book, which he cited and promoted through various social media platforms that made the same points, including posts describing specific male and female duties in a “rightly ordered household” and that men are like recovering alcoholics when it comes to lust and that they should avoid fitness clubs where women entice them to sin whilst wearing “appalling” workout attire. On Twitter, the Member cited a tweet and wrote commentary that equated same-sex behaviour with animal behaviour. The Member’s messaging was laden with intolerance and derision for those who do not conform to his views. The Member’s comments made both male and female students feel upset and invalidated. His intolerance degraded students, their future aspirations and their gender identities. It disregarded the realities of students who identified as being part of the LGBTQ+ community and disrespected them and their lived experiences. Given the negative impact that the Member’s comments had on students’ psychological or emotional well-being, the Panel finds that his conduct was psychologically or emotionally abusive.

9The Member failed to comply with subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession, which are set out in the College by-laws. In particular, the Panel found that the Member breached the professional standards of ”Commitment to Students and Student Learning” and ”Leadership in Learning Communities”. Members are expected to be dedicated in their care and commitment to students and should treat them equitably and with respect, while being sensitive to factors that influence student learning. The Member’s intolerant expression of his personal beliefs was discriminatory, demeaning, and created an unsafe and uncomfortable learning environment for students at the School. Students should never be made to feel alienated and demeaned as they did by the Member who held a position of trust and authority as a teacher.

10The Member also failed to comply with the ethical standards for the teaching profession, specifically with respect to showing care and respect for students. Members are expected to be compassionate and express insight and acceptance in developing students’ well-being and potential through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. They must also respect students’ human dignity and emotional wellness. The Member failed to do so when he advocated for the “right” way for men and women to behave. He showed a lack of compassion, acceptance and respect for those who identified differently from his personal beliefs. He was notably not respectful of women when he claimed that they had a responsibility to curb men’s lust and when he promoted sexist views that women should submit to their husbands. He attacked people’s human dignity by suggesting that there was something wrong with men if they were not normatively masculine. By publicly expressing such sentiments on social media and directly in front of students, the Member showed no insight or regard for students’ well-being and how they might feel or be negatively affected by his statements.

11The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, teachers must exemplify moral virtues and act in a manner that encourages students to be good, moral citizens. Teachers hold a position of power and authority in the classroom and the wider community, and they are given the privilege of shaping students’ minds and behaviours. Their responsibilities to exemplify good values and act as positive role models should be taken seriously, given their unique position in society. The Member, however, failed to meet his professional obligations by espousing intolerant views on gender roles and identities that promoted discrimination and stigmatization of his students, and that perpetuated misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic and racist ideology in public forums, including via social media. By expressing such hurtful and denigrating views about people, the Member did not act as a positive role model and he did not exemplify behaviour to which students should aspire. He therefore breached his professional duties as a teacher.

12The Panel found that, having regard to all the circumstances, the Member’s conduct would reasonably be viewed by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Among other things, the Member publicly described feminism as a festering disease; he equated those who participate in same-sex behaviour with animals who eat feces and kill their children; he wrote in his book that effeminacy in men should be eradicated; and, he posted a video on Twitter saying that women are made to please and which promoted rape culture stereotypes. The Member spread his intolerant and deeply offensive views repeatedly in public forums and identified himself as a teacher in the Catholic school system in the process. By so doing, the Member showed a profound lack of moral and professional judgment. Such intolerance, which creates an unsafe and uncomfortable learning environment for students of diverse backgrounds and beliefs, has no place in Ontario’s school system.

13The Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Conduct that is unbecoming a member often includes “off-duty” conduct that undermines the reputation of the professional as a whole. It is clear that the Member’s repeated intolerant comments had this effect. Members of the community, including students, parents, and School alumni expressed their outrage and disappointment at the views being expressed by the Member and the fact that he was still allowed to teach students. Given that the Member identified himself as a Catholic teacher in his posts, he directly, negatively eroded the reputation of the profession and undermined the public’s confidence and trust in the teaching profession.

F. PENALTY DECISION

14The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. College Counsel also submitted that the Member entered into a Resignation, Undertaking and Acknowledgment dated October 11, 2022 (Exhibit G of Exhibit 2) (the “Undertaking”), by which the Member resigned his membership with the Ontario College of Teachers and undertook never to teach in any public or private school in Ontario or work in any position which requires membership in the Ontario College of Teachers, or to seek reinstatement of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

15In an oral decision rendered on November 9, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty, in light of the Member’s Undertaking, and made the following order:

1. 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 is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”); and

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three (3) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

16The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties in light of the Member’s Undertaking to never again hold a teaching position in Ontario. 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. McDonald, 2019 ONOCT 104; Ontario College of Teachers v. Ubertelli, 2015 ONOCT 81; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Teal, 2022 ONOCT 33.

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case include the fact that the Member’s book and social media posts had such far reach into the public. Many students, parents and members of the community had access to and did in fact, access his posts and felt degraded, disturbed and hurt by the Member’s comments. Also, the prolonged duration of the Member’s misconduct over the course of years shows that his behaviour was not the result of a momentary lapse in judgment. He wrote on various social media platforms with the same derogatory and disrespectful theme. Moreover, the Panel noted that much of his posted content was the Member’s own original writings, and not retweets of other people’s comments, and that he was the author of the book that promoted the eradication of the feminization of men. The Member also publicly identified himself as a Catholic teacher, which tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession and gave the impression that the teaching profession shared his intolerant views.

18In terms of mitigating factors, the Panel considered that the Member had resigned his Certificate of Qualification and Registration and signed an Undertaking not to seek reinstatement. This assured the Panel that the Member would no longer have access to students and repeat the same misconduct in a teaching position, which would protect the public and preserve public confidence in Ontario’s teaching profession. In addition, the Member has not previously been the subject of discipline proceedings and he admitted his misconduct, which suggests that he has taken some responsibility for his actions. 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 pattern of inappropriate conduct in promoting messages of intolerance warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models for students and encourage respect for Ontario’s diverse population and their beliefs, which the Member failed to do by disseminating hateful and demeaning messages to his students directly and to the general public. 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 three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. In making this decision, the Panel gave considerable weight to the fact that the Member resigned from the profession because that will ensure that students are no longer exposed to his intolerance, no matter the length of the suspension. The Panel accepted College Counsel’s submissions that had the Member not entered into an Undertaking, they would have sought a more severe penalty. The Panel’s order to accept the penalty jointly proposed by the parties reflects the implications of the Member’s resignation, namely that he is permanently barred from re-entering the teaching profession. Since the Member has resigned and entered into an Undertaking, the Panel’s 3-month suspension will not serve as much of a specific deterrent to the Member, but is important as a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. The 3-month suspension imposed has a punitive element and speaks to the seriousness of the Member’s actions and misconduct. 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. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on November 24, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.