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
Carson Clarke Teal, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CARSON CLARKE TEAL (REGISTRATION #275216)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Yasser Leheta, OCT Scott Barker, OCT
HEARD: March 7, 2022
Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Carson Clarke Teal, self-represented 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.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on March 7, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Carson Clarke Teal (the “Member”) attended the hearing but did not have 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 September 21, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Carson Clarke Teal 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);1
(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. 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:
Carson Clarke Teal is an Ontario Certified Teacher – Inactive/Non-Practising member. Attached 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 Avon Maitland District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX]School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2, who both identify as [XXX], were Grade [XXX] students in the [XXX] class.
Student 1 and Student 2
Between September 2019 to February 2020, the Member did not accommodate Student 1 and Student 2 when they requested that they be referred to by their preferred names, which negatively impacted Student 1 and 2’s emotional and psychological well-being. Instead, the Member addressed them by their birth names as written on the [XXX] sheets.
The Member told Student 1 and Student 2 that they made “lovely girls” and asked them “why do you want to be guys?”. During a conversation with Student 1, the Member referred to Student 1 as “broken” when trying to point out that sin comes naturally to all humans. Student 1 understood the Member referred to them as broken because they wanted to be identified as male. This negatively impacted Student 1 and Student 2’s emotional and psychological well-being.
During class, the Member either called Student 1 by the student’s given name rather than his preferred name, or told Student 1 that he would avoid calling Student 1 by any name at all. This caused Student 1 and Student 2 not to feel accepted or welcomed in [XXX] classroom. Attached and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of Student 1’s handwritten statement with respect to these events.
On or about January 29, 2020, the Member gave Student 1 an article entitled, “First Non-Binary Person Rejects Gender Ideology”. The Member wrote a personal note to Student 1 on the article which read: “I actually do care about you, what happens to you and what you do with your life”. The article contained content unrelated to the curriculum and statements that negatively impacted Student 1’s emotional or psychological well-being. Attached and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the article.
December 2019 and January 2020
On December 20, 2019, the Member distributed a document he authored to [XXX] class entitled “Things to Consider as you Advance Through Your High School Years”. This document contained content unrelated to the curriculum that contained the Member’s personal beliefs, and ought not to have been distributed. Attached and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of “Things to Consider as you Advance Through Your High School Years”.
In January 2020, the Member sent inappropriate email communications to the Principal and Vice-Principal of the School regarding Student 1 and Student 2. The email communications contained the following inappropriate statements:
(a) referred to Student 1 as “she,” despite being aware that Student 1 identified as a male;
(b) suggested that referring to Student 1 and/or Student 2 by a male name “was promoting/exacerbating a mental illness,”;
(c) stated that “We would be just as willing to cooperate with the student who someday reveals to us that they feel more like a giraffe than a human and would like to be treated accordingly.”
Attached and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Member’s emails.
Board Investigation
The Board concluded that the Member breached the Board’s Administrative Procedure 141 – Equity and Inclusive Education, and/or Administrative Procedure 398 – Gender Identity: Accommodation of Persons who Identify as Transgender (Staff & Students). Attached and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the Board’s policies.
The Member’s employment was terminated by the Board on February 18, 2020. The termination was grieved and the Member tendered his resignation from the Board effective February 18, 2020. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the termination letter.
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 him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(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.
- 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 March 7, 2022 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 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 11 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.
8The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member persistently made comments that questioned or denied Student 1 and Student 2’s gender identity and expression. Among other things, the Member refused to acknowledge and use Student 1 and Student 2’s preferred names and pronouns and deliberately addressed Student 1 by their dead name or by no name at all. The Member asked Student 1 and Student 2 why they “want to be guys” and commented that they made “lovely girls” and, as described in Student 1’s impact statement, made comments that Student 1 interpreted to mean that gender non-conforming students are “broken” (see Exhibit 2 at Exhibit B). The Member’s insensitive verbal interactions with Student 1 and Student 2 about their gender expression rise to the level of verbal abuse.
9The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Student 1 wrote in a statement that the Member’s behaviour, as described above, made Student 1 and Student 2 not feel accepted or welcomed in the [XXX] class and upset Student 1 to the point of tears. Student 1 also reported other incidents which had a negative psychological or emotional impact: when the Member shared a provocative news article accompanied by a personal note from the Member that discussed gender identity, as well as when Student 1 was made aware that the Member applauded the cancellation of an LGBTQ event at the school (see Exhibit 2 at Exhibit B). Student 1 interpreted these incidents as further attempts by the Member to question the validity of their gender identity and to discourage them from expressing it. The Member’s refusal to accept Student 1 and Student 2’s preferred names and pronouns and the interactions that the Member initiated with Student 1 on these issues were psychologically and emotionally abusive to Student 1 and Student 2.
10The Member failed to comply with the Act, the regulations or the by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by contravening section 26 of the College’s by-laws, which prescribes the Ethical Standards and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. In particular, the Member’s conduct was a breach of the ethical standardof “Care” which includes the expression of compassion and acceptance toward students, and the standard of “Respect”, which imparts on members the responsibility to honour human dignity. Continuing to use dead names and pronouns when asked not to and attempting to dissuade Student 1 from expressing their gender identity, as described above, fails to honour human dignity. Similarly, the Member’s intolerance, as expressed toward Student 1 and Student 2 and through email correspondence with his Principal and Vice-Principal, demonstrates a lack of compassion and acceptance toward students of diverse gender identities.
11The Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) on Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act provides that it is the duty of a teacher to lead by example and to model high standards of behaviour for students. In other words, teachers must act as positive role models. The Member’s conduct fell short in this regard when he demonstrated intolerance toward Student 1 and Student 2 through the actions described above and when he tried to impose his personal views and beliefs on students by distributing an article to Student 1 and a personal document to [XXX] class that were unrelated to the curriculum.
12The Member 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). The terms disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional do not have a legislated definition, but discipline committees have defined these terms disjunctively, and in decreasing order of seriousness. Conduct can be characterized as disgraceful when it is so serious that it brings into question the moral fitness of a member and a member’s ability to discharge their professional duties. This is commonly viewed as the most serious of the three terms. In this case, the Member has agreed that his conduct can be described by all three terms and his moral and professional failings can be properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. By his behaviour, the Member undermined the validity of students’ gender identity, which modeled intolerant behaviour to all students and had a negative impact on the well-being of Student 1 and Student 2. As recognized by the Member’s employer and Board policies (see Exhibit 2 at Exhibit G), the Member’s refusal to acknowledge and use Student 1 and Student 2’s preferred names and pronouns was a form of discrimination.
13Similarly, the Member’s conduct as described above, is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers is undermined when members fail to acknowledge and treat non gender conforming students equitably at school.
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 March 7, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a written reprimand 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 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. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1st and August 1st, the suspension will commence on September 1st.
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 or commencing a position for which a Certificate of Qualification or Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate classroom communications with an emphasis on fostering diversity and inclusion, 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
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. Ubertelli, 2015 ONOCT 81, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Fernandes, 2019 ONOCT 13.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member’s insensitive conduct was repeated over a prolonged period of several months. The Member’s conduct was clearly intentional, and not a momentary lapse of judgment. Second, the Member defied the directions and policies from his employer with regard to providing an equitable and inclusive learning community and accommodating persons who identify as transgender. As a result, Student 1 and Student 2 suffered psychological and emotional harm. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
17The Panel finds that the Member’s behaviour warrants a reprimand. The Member’s demonstrated intolerance and discriminatory conduct toward students has no place in the classroom. Teachers have a responsibility to maintain a safe and inclusive learning environment and to treat all students equitably. 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.
18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a three-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 March 22, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding appropriate classroom communications with an emphasis on fostering diversity and inclusion will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and, should he return to teaching, will help the Member make better decisions in any future 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.
Date: March 17, 2022
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Yasser Leheta, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Scott Barker, OCT Member, Discipline Panel