Ontario College of Teachers v. Kacimbro, 2022 ONOCT 32

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Kacimbro 2022 ONOCT 32

Date: 2022-03-30

PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Sabina Kacimbro (Thoma), OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

Sabina Kacimbro (Thoma) (REGISTRATION #563856)

PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Wanda Percival Nicola Powadiuk, OCT

HEARD: March 29, 2022

COUNSEL: Noam Uri, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for Sabina Kacimbro (Thoma) 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 October 27-28, 2020; January 18 and 27-28, 2021; March 22 and 26, 2021; April 26-27, 2021; and June 9, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee. A decision finding that Sabina Kacimbro¹ (the “Member”) engaged in professional misconduct was issued on November 27, 2021, with reasons reported at Ontario College of Teachers v. Kacimbro, 2021 ONOCT 145. In particular, the Panel found that the Member failed to adequately supervise and discipline students. As a result of the Member’s poor classroom management and her failure to implement appropriate discipline with her students, an incident occurred in her class in which a student hit another student. The Member did not apply her School’s progressive discipline policy properly. In addition, the Member exercised poor professional judgment by using a teaching technique (i.e., writing common student mistakes on the board) that had the potential to embarrass students and that did, in fact, embarrass at least one student. Based on this conduct, the Panel found that the Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(11), 1(15), and 1(18).

2The Panel reconvened on March 29, 2022 to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the penalty phase of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to penalty.

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. PENALTY DECISION

4The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 29), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on March 29, 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 impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within ninety (90) days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management (focus on supervision and discipline) and instructional strategies (focus on avoiding embarrassment), subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Joint Submission on Penalty made an exhibit at the hearing of this matter, the Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision and the Decision on Penalty 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.

C. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

5The 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.² 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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. James, 2019 ONOCT 33; Ontario College of Teachers v. Barros, 2017 ONOCT 5; Ontario College of Teachers v. Turner, 2019 ONOCT 24; and Ontario College of Teachers v Riccardi, 2014 ONOCT 88 (Decision and Reasons on Finding) and 2015 ONOCT 67 (Decision and Reasons on Penalty).

6The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that (1) a student under the Member’s supervision was injured following an altercation with another student, which the Member could have prevented by using appropriate classroom management and discipline techniques; and (2) a student was embarrassed as a result of the Member’s inappropriate teaching strategy. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member has no prior discipline history. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

7The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Teachers must be vigilant and properly supervise students under their care. Teachers must also foster and encourage student learning by using teaching and assessment techniques that are positive, supportive, and that will not embarrass students or diminish their self-esteem. 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.

8The Panel finds requiring the Member to successfully complete a pre-approved course of instruction regarding classroom management (focusing on supervision and discipline) and instruction strategies (focusing on avoiding embarrassment) is appropriate as it will assist in the rehabilitation and remediation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will equip her with the tools and strategies to help her to make better decisions in the classroom going forward.

9The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1The Member’s name at the time of the finding stage of the hearing and when the allegations were made was “Sabina Kacimbro”. The Member changed her name to “Sabina Thoma” prior to the release of the Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision and is currently listed in the public register as “Sabina Thoma”.
2. 2See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.