Ontario College of Teachers v. Fife, 2022 ONOCT 12

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Fife 2022 ONOCT 12 Date: 2022-02-02

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 Stephen Malcolm Fife, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

Between: Ontario College of Teachers – and – Stephen Malcolm Fife (Registration #432936)

Panel: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair Andrew Glenny Terrence Singh, OCT

Heard: February 1, 2022

Counsel: Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Naomi Greckol-Herlich, for Stephen Malcolm Fife 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 February 1, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Stephen Malcolm Fife (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

3A hearing was originally scheduled for August 16, 2021, and then adjourned on consent to September 23, 2021. On September 23, 2021, the Member brought a motion to adjourn the hearing. The motion was granted and the hearing with respect to the allegations set out in two Notices of Hearing dated February 15, 2019 and June 18, 2020 was set for February 1, 2022. The February 1, 2022 hearing date was peremptory on the Member.

A. Publication Ban

4The 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

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 15, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member 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 abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

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

(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(f) 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);

(g) 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);

(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 18, 2020 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(c) he 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);

(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).

7The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations set out in these Notices of Hearing, in accordance with subsection 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

C. Agreed Statement of Facts

8College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 3), which provides the following:

1. Stephen Malcolm Fife 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.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School [XXX] or as a teacher at [XXX] School [XXX].

2015 – 2016 School Year

3. During the 2015-2016 school year, the Member was a teacher at [XXX] Student 1 was a grade [XXX] student in the Member’s [XXX] class.

4. Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] student at the School, but was not enrolled in any class taught by the Member.

5. On April 29, 2016, while the Member was showing a film in class, Student 1 rested his head on his desk. The film study unit was worth a significant portion of the student’s grade. Without viewing the film, Student 1 would not be able to complete this significant assignment. The Member asked him twice to pay attention to the film and not to sleep in class. On the third occasion, the Member approached Student 1 from behind and grasped the back of Student 1’s sweatshirt. The Member pulled Student 1 up to raise him from lying on the desk to roughly a 45-degree angle. This put pressure on Student 1’s neck.

6. On May 3, 2016, Student 1 sought medical attention as a result of this incident. On physical examination, he was diagnosed with neck sprain by his family doctor.

7. Later, in the afternoon of April 29, 2016, the Member was called into another classroom by a supply teacher. The supply teacher had been in the class for one week and this was the third time the Member had been called upon to assist in managing Student 1’s behaviour. Apparently, Student 1 was refusing to attend the Vice Principal’s office. The Member was upset with Student 1’s conduct in class and he asked to speak to him in the hallway. Student 1 asked Student 2 to join them in the hallway to be his witness and verify that he had done nothing wrong. The Member proceeded to yell at both students, telling them that he was going to beat them both and drag them to the Vice Principal’s office.

8. As a result of the above incidents, the Member was charged with one count of assault and one count of uttering threats against Student 1. The Member agreed to enter into a Peace Bond and the charges were withdrawn on July 7, 2017. One of the conditions of the Peace Bond was that the Member have no contact with Student 1.

9. On September 13, 2016, the Board transferred the Member to [XXX] and he was required to complete a Fitness to Work assessment that addressed anger management and professional boundaries.

2018 – 2019 School Year

10. On November 23, 2018, the Member said to a group of students, “They changed our contract last year. We were allowed to kill three students last year but now we can only maim them” or words to that effect. The Member said this during a discussion with students about how to get students to pay attention, and intended it as a joke. This was very upsetting to some of the Member’s students.

11. On another occasion, when speaking to a student who was disrupting the class and not working, the Member warned the student to stop, by saying, “my foot, your butt” while gesturing to his foot with his hand and kicking his foot in the air. The implication was that the Member would kick the student in his buttocks if he did not stop horsing around and get to work.

12. On another occasion, the Member said, “If we could shoot one of you in the kneecap, the rest would pay attention” or words to that effect during a discussion the Member and the students were having regarding getting them to pay attention.

13. The Member has been a teacher since 2001. The Member has no prior history before the Ontario College of Teachers.

GUILTY PLEA

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

15. 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), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

16. 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.

17. 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

9Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing dated February 15, 2019, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought because proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 would be duplicative. The Panel granted the request.

10Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 1, 2022 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. Reasons for Decision

11The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 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 headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member used physical force, yelling and threatening language against students.

12The Panel finds the Member verbally abused his students contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). The Member has admitted to yelling at Student 1 and Student 2 and telling them that he was going to beat them and drag them to the vice-principal’s office. The Member has also admitted to making the following statements towards students in 2018:

• “They changed our contract last year. We were allowed to kill three students last year but now we can only maim them” or words to that effect;

• “my foot, your butt” while gesturing to his foot with his hand and kicking his foot in the air; and

• “If we could shoot one of you in the kneecap, the rest would pay attention” or words to that effect.

It is unacceptable for teachers to yell at and to verbally threaten students even in the face of challenging student behaviour. Teachers must always maintain their composure and be professional in their dealings with students, which the Member failed to do in this case. While the Member may not have intended to harm his students and may have made some of the statements described above as a joke or to get students’ attention, they were inappropriate and violent. Some students found his remark about only being allowed to maim, not kill students, upsetting. The Member’s conduct therefore amounts to verbal abuse.

13The Member physically abused Student 1, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. On April 29, 2016, the Member approached Student 1 from behind and pulled him up by the back of his sweatshirt to raise him from lying on his desk, thus putting pressure on Student 1’s neck. As a result of this incident, Student 1 sought medical attention and was diagnosed with a neck sprain by his family doctor. While the Member may have felt it important for Student 1 to pay attention in class, teachers should never resort to using physical force against students to gain compliance from them. Teachers are required to ensure the safety of students and to prioritize the well-being of their students. The Member’s actions toward Student 1 were abusive and are unacceptable.

14The Member psychologically or emotionally abused his students contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel places significant weight on the fact that the Member pleads guilty to this head of misconduct and also notes that the Member’s comment to the effect that, “They changed our contract last year. We were allowed to kill three students last year but now we can only maim them” was very upsetting to some of his students. Further, the Panel accepts it as reasonable that Student 1 would have been adversely impacted psychologically or emotionally by the Member’s aggressive and threatening actions and comments toward him.

15The Member’s conduct breached the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession outlined in section 32.02 of the by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate a commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment, and empathy in practice. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness, and cognitive development of student. Yelling at students, uttering threats or making statements that imply wanting to hurt students, and using physical force against students do not align with these ethical standards. The Member did not show empathy or respect for students’ well-being by his volatile and violent conduct and comments. As such, the Member’s conduct fell below the ethical standards of the teaching profession.

16The Member acted in contravention of section 264(1) of the Education Act, and as such breached subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. This section sets out the duties of a teacher. In particular, subsection 264(1)(b) of the Education Act requires teachers to encourage students in the pursuit of learning and subsection 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models for students. The Member failed to discharge these duties when he used unnecessary physical force against Student 1 and when he yelled at and threatened students with violence. The Member failed to use proper classroom management techniques, set a poor example for his students and did not create a safe and supportive learning environment to encourage students in the pursuit of learning.

17The Member’s conduct as described above was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s various acts of abuse not only showed poor judgment, but the repeated nature of the Member’s conduct shows a persistent disregard for his professional obligations. The Member showed moral failing by engaging in threatening and abusive conduct that put the safety and well-being of his students, and in particular Student 1, at risk. His misconduct is therefore properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

18The Member’s conduct was also unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Conduct unbecoming a member is commonly understood to be conduct that undermines the reputation of the profession as a whole. By failing to ensure student safety and by repeatedly threatening his students using violent language, the Member’s conduct eroded the confidence that students, parents, and the public place in teachers and degraded the reputation of the profession.

F. Penalty Decision

19The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 1, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty 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 shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of six (6) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and professional ethics, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. Reasons for Penalty Decision

20The 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. Labbé, 2018 ONOCT 19 (Decision and Reasons on Finding) and 2018 ONOCT 39 (Decision and Reasons on Penalty); Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79; Ontario College of Teachers v. Mate, 2018 ONOCT 65; and Ontario College of Teachers v. O’Shea, 2017 ONOCT 8.

21The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and sparing witnesses from having to testify at a hearing. This was also the Member’s first appearance before the Discipline Committee. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the Member repeatedly made inappropriate and violent comments towards students at two different schools, during two separate academic years. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable in the circumstances.

22The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate use of physical force against Student 1 and his repeated threats made to his students warrants a reprimand. The Member’s conduct was harmful and set a poor example for students. The Panel is also concerned that the Member failed to remediate his conduct and continued to use language threatening violence towards students after having been charged criminally for uttering threats against Student 1, and after the Board addressed the inappropriateness of his conduct through the transfer of schools and his Fitness to Work assessment. While the Panel understands the Member entered into a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn, the Member should have been careful in his language and communications with students thereafter. 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.

23Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on February 16, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

24The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management and professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The Panel expects that this coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will equip him with strategies and tools to help him to make better decisions in future interactions with students.

25The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.