DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Donna Barbara Lajoie, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
DONNA BARBARA LAJOIE (REGISTRATION #169930)
PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair
Lois Figg
Sandra Pizzuti, OCT
HEARD: February 8, 2022
Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Donna Barbara Lajoie
Rebecca Durcan, 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 8, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Neither Donna Barbara Lajoie (the “Member”) nor her legal counsel attended the hearing. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the Member had not requested an adjournment and 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 January 22, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) 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);
(c) she falsified a record relating to the member’s professional responsibilities, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(13);
(d) she failed to comply with the Act, or the regulations or the by-laws, and specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);1
(e) 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);
(f) 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);
(g) she 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:
Donna Barbara Lajoie is a retired 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board (the “Board”) as a Department Head of Student Services at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Mississauga, Ontario.
At all material times, Person A was employed by the Board as an [XXX] teacher at the School.
At all material times, Student 1, who was the [XXX] of Person A, was a Grade 12 student at the School.
During the 2017/2018 academic year, Student 1 was enrolled in a Grade 12 [XXX] class [XXX] taught by [XXX].
In or about November 2017, Student 1 was nominated by the School Principal for the [XXX] Scholarship and the [XXX] program, a highly competitive, [XXX] to [XXX] University.
Ontario Universities Application Centre
In September 2017, the Member was appointed by the School Principal to be the Administrator for the Ontario Universities Application Centre (“OUAC”) process for students’ applications to Ontario universities for the 2018/2019 school year. The OUAC is the centralized processing centre for applications for undergraduate admission to Ontario universities. The OUAC receives applications and academic information from secondary schools, processes it and transfers the information to the universities that students have selected.
Each school may designate one OUAC administrator. The Ministry of Education regulates access to the OUAC site by providing a restricted access code to each school administrator. In accepting responsibility as an OUAC Administrator, the Member was required to sign the Counsellors’ Online Services (“COLS”) Terms and Conditions which includes a declaration that all information and documentation provided to the OUAC in support of an applicant is accurate. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the COLS Terms and Conditions that the Member was required to sign.
Prior to the December 1, 2017 deadline, Student 1 submitted her application to, among others, [XXX] and to a [XXX] program at [XXX] through OUAC so that she would be considered in the pool of [XXX] applicants.
Person A’s discussions with the Member
On or about March 20, 2018, Person A met with the Member to discuss her [XXX] university applications. In particular, Person A was upset and worried about her [XXX] midterm mark of 76% in her Grade 12 [XXX] class, and how this might impact her [XXX]chances of gaining entry into the [XXX] program. Person A broke down while speaking to the Member. The Member dissuaded Person A from enrolling Student 1 in an alternative educational facility to repeat the [XXX] course. Instead, she recommended waiting to see what grade Student 1 had earned by the time mid-semester report cards were issued.
At the midterm point, Student 1’s calculated average in [XXX] was 76%. Exercising his professional judgment, Student 1’s [XXX] teacher recorded her midterm grade as 80%. He input this grade into Trillium, the School’s Student Information Management System.
Grades input in Trillium, by course teachers, are then transferred by the School’s Guidance department into the OUAC software for reporting to universities. Student 1’s midterm grade of 80% in her [XXX]class was entered into the OUAC system on April 23, 2018 at 1:23 p.m. This grade was consistent with the grade percentage entered by [XXX], into Trillium.
On or about April 23, 2018, Person A again contacted the Member in distress about her [XXX] [XXX] grade of 80%, which was not up to her usual academic performance in other subjects and in other academic years.
Student 1 had received an interview for the [XXX] program on April 13, 2018. The deadline date for reporting mid-semester grades to OUAC was April 26, 2018, meaning the universities would be using final Grade 11 and 12 grades and the Grade 12 midterm grades to decide which applicants would receive conditional offers of admission and be awarded scholarships.
The Member’s alteration of the grade
During their conversation on April 23, 2018, the Member reassured Person A that she could “take care of it”. The Member offered to access Student 1’s academic record on the OUAC site and change her midterm [XXX] grade from 80% to 91% in order to bolster her academic transcript to align with Student 1’s usual performance and ability. Person A agreed to this plan.
The Member rationalized altering Student 1’s [XXX] grade on the basis that her Credit Counselling Summary showed that Student 1 had received consistently high grades from grade 9 through grade 12 to that point – 90% or greater in 32 of 35 high school marks, including 94% in grade 11 [XXX], with the exceptions being in two [XXX] courses where she received 84% in grade 11 [XXX] and 84% in grade 11[XXX]; Like most grade 12 students at the School who were applying to university, Student 1 suffered from high anxiety around her university applications and academic achievement, and was highly involved in extra-curricular activities.
On April 23, at 4:21 p.m., the Member changed Student 1’s mark in the OUAC system to 91%, with the grade type shown as “M” for Midterm. Before doing so, the Member looked across the hall to the Vice Principal’s office to see if she could consult with him, but the Vice Principal was not there. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibits “C” and “D” respectively, is a copy of the OUAC print out for Student 1 showing the change made to Student 1’s [XXX] mark, and a copy of the OUAC Resource Guide for Guidance Counsellors on reporting grades and diploma details.
The falsification of Student 1’s academic record was made without the knowledge or consent of Student 1’s [XXX] teacher, anyone in the School administration, nor the [XXX] department head. Other than the Member and Person A, no one else was aware that a change had been made to Student 1’s OUAC record.
In her capacity as the School’s OUAC Administrator, the Member then issued Student 1’s altered academic record by uploading the data to the system for OUAC’s use.
The Member did not adjust Student 1’s midterm grade in Trillium, nor on Student 1’s report card, and it remained at 80%.
At the end of the school year, Student 1 achieved a mark of 77% on her final exam and a final grade of 75% in her Grade 12 [XXX] course. These marks were transmitted to OUAC in or about late June or July 2018, by which time Student 1 had already accepted an offer into a university program.
Board’s Investigation
In or about June 2018, the School Principal learned that a coding error had been made on Student 1’s academic record with respect to a Grade 12 [XXX] course which Student 1 had completed through an alternative education stream. When consulted about the issue, the Member advised that she had made an inadvertent clerical error. She asked the Guidance Secretary to change the [XXX] course code from [XXX], as it had been entered, to [XXX].
As a result of the coding concern, the Principal undertook a review of Student 1’s Trillium and OUAC records. In the course of his review, the Principal noted the discrepancy between Student 1’s recorded midterm [XXX] grade in Trillium and the grade input in the OUAC site.
The Principal spoke with the Member and Person A about this discrepancy. The Member readily acknowledged having made the change and advised the Principal that this had never happened before. The Member’s actions were in breach of the Board’s Code of Ethics Policy and Assessment and Evaluation Policy, the latter being based on the Ministry of Education’s Growing Success policy document. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibits “E”, “F” and “G” respectively are copies of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board’s Code of Ethics Policy, Assessment and Evaluation Policy, and the Ministry of Education’s Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting in Ontario Schools, 2010.
The Board commenced an investigation. While the investigation was ongoing, the Member tendered her letter of resignation from teaching due to retirement, effective August 30, 2018. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the Member’s letter of resignation dated August 26, 2018.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(12), 1(13), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
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
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the 1(14) allegation was being sought as it would be duplicative to pursue both the subsection 1(5) and 1(14) allegations. The Panel granted the request.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 8, 2022 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(12), 1(13), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 25 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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 falsified Student 1’s midterm mark for her Grade 12 [XXX] class in the OUAC system.
9The Member breached the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In coming to this conclusion, the Panel placed considerable weight on the fact that the Member admitted that she breached the standards of the profession. The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession are codified in the College By-laws. The ethical standard of “Trust” embodies fairness, openness, and honesty, and forms the basis of members’ professional relationships with students, parents or guardians, and the public. The ethical standard of “Integrity” refers to honesty, reliability, and moral action as core values of the teaching profession. The Member’s actions demonstrated a complete lack of trustworthiness that jeopardized the reliability and integrity of the provincial university application process. As the OUAC administrator for the School, the Member was required to sign the COLS Terms and Conditions declaring that all information and documentation provided to OUAC in support of an applicant would be accurate. The Member clearly breached this undertaking by falsifying Student 1’s midterm grades, thus giving her an unfair advantage on her university applications.
10The Member contravened subsections 1(12) and 1(13) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 when she, in her capacity as the School’s OUAC administrator, falsified Student 1’s midterm Grade 12 [XXX] mark and then issued this false mark for OUAC’s use by uploading it onto the OUAC system. The Member knew this mark to be false. Person A (Student 1’s[XXX]) contacted the Member in distress about Student 1’s midterm mark being 80%. The Member offered to (and subsequently did) access Student 1’s academic record on the OUAC site and increased Student 1’s mid-term mark to 91% without the knowledge or consent of Student 1’s [XXX] teacher, anyone in the School’s administration, or the [XXX] Department Head.
11The Member’s actions 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. Subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act requires members to exemplify several moral virtues and it is commonly understood to mean that members must act as a positive role models. The Member’s deceitful conduct in falsifying Student 1’s midterm grades demonstrated a significant lapse of moral and professional judgment. Section 264(1)(d) of the Education Act requires members to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school. The Member was appointed by her principal to serve as the School’s administrator of the OUAC university application process. She was expected to coordinate this process responsibly and with integrity on the School’s behalf. The Member’s dishonest conduct compromised this important process. Moreover, by changing Student 1’s midterm mark, the Member undermined her colleague (Student 1’s [XXX] teacher) who was responsible for assessing and evaluating Student 1’s work.
12The Member’s actions were disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member deliberately chose to alter Student 1’s Grade 12 [XXX] midterm mark and provide the altered record for OUAC’s use. She showed a complete lack of professional judgment and a flagrant disregard for her professional obligations. Her actions gave Student 1 an unfair advantage with her university applications, and accordingly disadvantaged all other student applicants who were competing for a limited number of spots in Ontario’s universities. The Member’s dishonest actions showed significant ethical and moral shortcomings, such that her conduct can rightfully be characterized as all three terms outlined in subsection 1(18).
13Finally, the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession are expected to be stewards of the public confidence and to do their upmost to maintain the reputation of the teaching profession. Moreover, as the OUAC administrator for the School, the Member held a particular position of trust, having signed a declaration undertaking to ensure the accuracy of the information provided to OUAC. The Member’s deliberate misreporting to the OUAC, was a significant breach of trust that degraded the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY DECISION
14The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 8, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
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”).
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four (4) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of 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 the Member returning to teaching, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding 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 her 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. MacKellar, 2017 ONOCT 76; Ontario College of Teachers v. Debich, 2018 ONOCT 8; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Opris, 2021 ONOCT 88.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The mitigating factors are that: (1) the Member has admitted her misconduct and entered into a resolution with the College, thereby conserving the College’s and the Discipline Committee’s judicial resources and eliminating the need for witnesses to have to testify at a contested hearing; and (2) the Member has had no prior discipline history with the College during her lengthy career. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that: (1) the Member engaged in professional misconduct while holding a position of leadership and trust, as the OUAC administrator for her School; (2) the Member’s dishonest conduct was deliberate; and (3) the Member’s falsification of Student 1’s midterm mark potentially disadvantaged other worthy student candidates. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that the Member’s deceitful conduct warrants a reprimand. It is imperative that marks are reported to OUAC honestly and accurately, to ensure fairness to all students in the province who are applying to post-secondary education in Ontario. Falsification of marks degrades the integrity of the application process and can have significant implications for students’ futures. 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 and will also assure the public of the integrity of the discipline process.
18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a four-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented by College Counsel 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. The suspension also addresses public protection and ensures the public that the College takes seriously the Member’s acts of professional misconduct. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on February 23, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics, which must be successfully completed prior to any return to teaching, will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in carrying out her professional duties in accordance with the ethical standards for the profession, should she decide to return to teaching.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 17, 2022
Hanno Weinberger, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Lois Figg
Member, Discipline Panel
Sandra Pizzuti, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel