Ontario College of Teachers v. George, 2022 ONOCT 34

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v George 2022 ONOCT 34

Date: 2022-04-04

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 Robert Olen George, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ROBERT OLEN GEORGE (REGISTRATION #538045)

PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Claudette Rutherford, OCT Myrna Tulandi

HEARD: March 25, 2022

Nicholas Fitz, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for Robert Olen George 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 June 8 and August 17, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”). A decision finding that Robert Olen George (the “Member”) engaged in professional misconduct was issued on December 16, 2021, with reasons reported at Ontario College of Teachers v. George, 2021 ONOCT 143. In particular, the Panel found that the Member used physical interventions as a strategy for managing student behaviour, which included kicking a student. Based on this conduct, the Panel found that the Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.1), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

2The Panel reconvened on March 25, 2022 to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member did not attend the penalty phase of the hearing and did not have legal representation. The Panel was advised by College Counsel at the outset of the penalty 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 AND COSTS DECISION

4The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 13), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on March 25, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following orders with respect to penalty and costs:

1. 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”);

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two (2) 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) prior to returning to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and 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 classroom management and appropriate discipline, 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, Reasons for Decision and Orders of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 3(a)(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;

(iii) the course shall be completed no more than three months before the Member returns to teaching or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required.

(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.

4. The Member is directed to pay costs of this matter to the College fixed in the amount of $5,000.00, which must be paid within 120 days of the Committee’s Decision and Order.

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.¹ 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. Jackson, 2020 ONOCT 219; Ontario College of Teachers v. Marquis, 2020 ONOCT 164; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Datoo, 2020 ONOCT 146.

6The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct; namely, that he used inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 and physically abused Student 2. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member has cooperated with the College by proceeding by way of a joint submission on penalty, thereby saving the College the time and resources of a contested penalty hearing. In addition, the Member 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.

7The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Teachers are required to ensure the safety and well-being of students at all times, and therefore should not rely on physical means to manage challenging student behaviour. 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.

8Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a two-month suspension, as proposed by the parties, 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. 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 enhances public confidence by signalling that the Member’s misconduct will not be tolerated. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on April 9, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Penalty Decision and Order.

9The Panel finds that requiring the Member to successfully complete the pre-approved course of instruction regarding classroom management and appropriate discipline prior to any return to teaching will assist in the rehabilitation and remediation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will equip him with the tools and strategies to help him to make better decisions in the classroom, if he returns to a teaching position.

10The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

D. REASONS FOR COSTS

11Costs orders are compensatory and not punitive in nature. They ensure that the costs of a proceeding are apportioned fairly between the parties and to ensure that the cost is not borne solely by the rest of the profession through their membership dues. The Committee is empowered by subsection 30(5) at paragraph 4 of the Act to order costs payable by a member to the College where it has found that member guilty of professional misconduct. Rule 16 of the Rules sets out the applicable procedure where costs are sought by either party and Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20, sets out factors that a panel may consider when determining the appropriateness of a costs order.

12Through the adversarial process, the parties have agreed that an order of costs against the Member in the amount of $5,000 would be appropriate in this case. The Panel did not consider the Member’s conduct during the hearing disingenuous, but sees no reason to depart from the parties’ joint submission in this case, and therefore makes its costs order in accordance with the terms of the parties’ agreement.

13The Member must pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,000 within 120 days of the date of the Panel’s order (i.e., by no later than July 23, 2022).

Footnotes

1. 1See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Timothy Edward Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.