Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
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
Jean-Christophe Béarez, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JEAN-CHRISTOPHE BÉAREZ (REGISTRATION #424071)
PANEL: Myrna Tulandi, Chair
Élaine Legault, OCT
Yasser Leheta, OCT
HEARD: January 26, 2022
Emilie Bruneau, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Lise Leduc, for Jean-Christophe Béarez
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 January 26, 2022, this matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the "Panel") of the Ontario College of Teachers (the "College"). Pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, the proceeding was held electronically.
2Jean-Christophe Béarez (the “Member”) was in attendance for 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.
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 February 24, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Jean-Christophe Béarez 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 advised the Panel that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
Jean-Christophe Béarez is a member of the College. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”), in Orleans, Ontario.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Students 1 and 2 were Grade [XXX] students at an [XXX] school in the Board. Students 3 and 4 were Grade [XXX] students in the Member’s class.
During or around the period from September 2016 to April 2017, the Member failed to comply with the School’s nut-free policy. On more than one occasion, the Member ate granola bars containing nuts at the School. Although students pointed out that this was not allowed, the Member continued to bring them to the School and eat them. The School’s policy on nuts and peanuts had been handed out and reviewed by the Principal during the professional development (PD) days at the start of the school year. Copies of an excerpt from the staff handbook, the Board policy and the national association guidelines for school boards and commissions are attached as Appendix “B”.
The Member exchanged emails of a personal and inappropriate nature with Student 1 in which he referred to other students whom she knew to support remarks to the effect that his cohort in the current school year was difficult and immature. Specifically, on September 20, 2016, he wrote, “The school community is great. The students, not so much. […] I have boys in Grade [XXX] who are babies, so immature (like [another student]), and two girls in Grade [XXX] who challenge authority (they take themselves for Grade [XXX] students). Long story short, not a fun group. […] Academically, the cohort is weak. They can’t even conjugate the present indicative!!!!!” Similarly, on March 1, 2017, the Member wrote, “They can be long and boring [referring to meetings with other teachers]. My cohort is really not much fun, especially my [XXX] graders. They behave worse than [two other students].” This correspondence adversely affected Student 1.
The Member exchanged emails of a personal and inappropriate nature with Student 2 in which he referred to other students whom she knew to support remarks to the effect that his cohort in the current school year was difficult and immature. Specifically, on January 23, 2017, he wrote, “This year, I really don’t have a good group of students.” This correspondence adversely affected Student 2.
During or around the period from September 2016 to April 2017, the Member failed in his duty to maintain the standards of the teaching profession and was disrespectful to the students, in that he:
(i) failed to answer students’ questions;
(ii) failed to assist struggling students;
(iii) refused to help students who requested assistance;
(iv) answered in an unreceptive and uncaring manner, in particular by using such expressions as: "do it yourself," "figure it out," "get organized,” and “I’m sick of giving [you] the answers;"
(v) was unavailable for students when he was sitting at his desk; and
(vi) used derogatory expressions such as: "use your brain," "use your big muscle," "think before you speak," "I’m a fool and I put up with it," "you’re in Grade [XXX]; you should know that."
The Member’s actions were psychologically and emotionally damaging for several students. His comments were inappropriate and abusive.
On or about April 19, 2017, the Member told Student 3, "If you don’t finish, you’ll get a zero,” in response to a question from the student about an assignment he didn’t understand. This interaction adversely affected the student.
During or around the period from September 2016 to April 2017, the Member used the Easy button, a red button from the Staples office supply store reading “That Was Easy.” The Member would press the button when students gave the wrong answer to a question. Some students stopped participating out of fear that the Member would press the Easy button. When he was at another school, the Member was told to stop using the button and was suspended for using it.
During or around the period from September 2016 to April 2017, the Member called Student 4 "[XXX] ‘hot’", which adversely affected Student 4.
During or around the period from September 2016 to April 2017, the Member used a computer in class for personal reasons during teaching periods. He checked his email and professional soccer scores, looked at real estate listings and watched video clips. When students came up to his desk, he told them to go back to their seats and turned the computer screen towards himself so they couldn’t see it.
A copy of the human resources summary report is attached as Appendix “C”. A copy of the letter containing the findings of the November 27, 2017 administrative investigation, dated April 4, 2018, is attached as Appendix “D”.
On October 9, 2018, the Board dismissed the Member. He has not taught since April 26, 2017. The letters concerning the termination of the Member’s employment are attached as Appendix “E”.
Previous Disciplinary Measures
- The Member received several disciplinary letters, primarily regarding his conduct towards his students and colleagues. Copies of the letters addressed to him on the dates below are attached as Appendix “F”:
December 13, 2012
June 10, 2013
August 30, 2013
October 2, 2015
December 19, 2016 (levying a two-week suspension)
November 30, 2017.
On February 18, 2016, the Registrar opened an investigation into allegations that during the 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 school years, the Member’s teaching approach had shown poor professional judgment and negligence towards students and their learning. On September 28, 2016, a panel of the College’s Investigation Committee issued a caution to the Member.
On April 3, 2019, the College’s Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission of the parties and handed down on the Member, upon consent, a six-month suspension. The decision is attached as Appendix “G”.
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 constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct 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’s 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 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 the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on January 26, 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 15 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.
8The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. According to the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, members have a duty to demonstrate their commitment to their students and student learning. They must be dedicated to their students’ success, treat their students with respect and be sensitive to factors that influence their learning. By refusing to help students who requested assistance, answering in an unreceptive manner and refusing to answer their questions, the Member demonstrated his lack of respect for them. Instead of encouraging students’ success, he showed his disregard for their learning by not being available for them when he was sitting at his desk and by failing to assist struggling students. The Panel accepted the submissions of College Counsel and gave considerable weight to the Member’s plea of no contest to failing to maintain the standards of the profession.
9The Member abused one or more students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). He made fun of students in the class when they didn’t understand what he was teaching. For example, when students gave the wrong answer to a question, he pressed a Staples Easy button, which undermined their self-esteem and confidence. He also made disparaging comments to them, such as "use your brain" and "you’re in Grade [XXX]; you should know that." Similarly, when Student 3 asked a question about an assignment, the Member replied, "If you don’t finish, you’ll get a zero.” The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate comments and remarks belittled and disparaged students, which constitutes verbal abuse.
10Through his comments and remarks, the Member also abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). He is not contesting that his inappropriate comments and remarks (as described above) to students undermined several students’ psychological and emotional integrity. Furthermore, he exchanged emails of an inappropriate and personal nature with Students 1 and 2, his former students, in which he was critical of the competency of some students in his current class, which adversely affected Students 1 and 2. He also called Student 4 by an inappropriate, sexualized name (“[XXX] hot”), which adversely affected Student 4. The Panel found that the Member’s inappropriate emails and his inappropriate comments and remarks to his students thus created an environment that was not conducive to students’ psychological or emotional well-being, a fact uncontested by the Member.
11The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Subsection 264(1)a) of the Act includes the duty to teach diligently and faithfully the classes or subjects assigned to the teacher. Subsection 264(1)c) requires members to act as a role model for students. The Member failed to do so when he used a computer for personal purposes (such as real estate websites and sports videos) during teaching periods. When he was using the computer, he told students who came up to his desk to go back to their seats. His improper use of teaching time—using the computer for personal entertainment—shows a lack of commitment to diligently teaching the subjects assigned to him.
12The Member committed acts that, with respect to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). At the start of the school year, the Board had distributed the School’s nut-free policy. Nonetheless, the Member continued to eat granola bars containing nuts at the School, even when the students pointed out that this was not allowed. His flouting of a School policy, especially after being reminded of it, shows a flagrant disregard for the health and safety of the school community. The Member also demonstrated unprofessionalism and poor judgment when he exchanged emails with two former students in which he was critical of the maturity and academic competency of some students in his current class. The Panel finds that the Member’s actions are indicative of poor professional judgment, contrary to the duties of the teaching profession.
13Similarly, the Member’s conduct as described above is conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19), in that it undermines the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. DECISION ON PENALTY
14The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on January 26, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the 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 relating to this matter.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) Prior to resuming any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding communication in the classroom and professional boundaries, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted in 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 course goals;
(b) Within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
15The 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. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79, Ontario College of Teachers v. Labbé, 2018 ONOCT 19 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Mate, 2018 ONOCT 65.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The Member’s case includes several aggravating factors. Firstly, the professional misconduct involved several students and conduct that adversely affected students. Secondly, the Member was repeatedly cautioned regarding his disrespectful remarks to students, his lack of commitment to students and their learning and his overstepping of professional boundaries. In addition, the Member had already been disciplined by the Discipline Committee for similar conduct and had already received several discipline letters from his Board regarding his conduct and a caution from the College’s Investigation Committee. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his professional misconduct in this case, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand because he engaged in inappropriate conduct numerous times in spite of the Board’s cautions. Members are expected to be dedicated in their care and commitment to students, treat students equitably and with respect and be sensitive to factors that influence student learning. They are also expected to act as a role model for students and to engage professionally with the school community. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member in the hope of preventing him from re-offending. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
18Given the seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the prior cases presented are factually distinct in some ways from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and confirms that a suspension of the Member’s 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 misconduct is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the suspension of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will commence on February 10, 2022; that is, 15 days after the Panel’s decision and order.
19The Panel considers that taking a course of instruction regarding communication in the classroom and professional boundaries before resuming a teaching position will contribute to the Member’s rehabilitation process. It will remind him of his obligations as a teacher and help him to make better decisions in his interactions with students.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
February 3, 2022
Myrna Tulandi Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Yasser Leheta, OCT Member, Discipline Panel