Ontario College of Teachers v. Yeoman, 2022 ONOCT 54

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Yeoman 2022 ONOCT 54
Date: 2022-05-26

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
Donald Joseph Yeoman, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

DONALD JOSEPH YEOMAN (REGISTRATION #619976)

PANEL:
Emile Ramlochan, Chair
Anthony Jeethan, OCT
Emma Rhodes

HEARD: May 18, 2022

Christine Wadsworth, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Naomi Greckol-Herlich, for Donald Joseph Yeoman
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.

By order of Justice of the Peace T. Hodgins of the Ontario Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify the victim or a witness in this matter, pursuant to subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on May 18, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Donald Joseph Yeoman (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation. The Member attended immediately after the hearing for the delivery of his reprimand as agreed to by the parties. 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.

4The Panel also received a copy of the certified Court Information dated May 25, 2018 (Exhibit 2 at Exhibit B). As part of criminal proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, an order restricting publication was made on June 7, 2018 by Justice of the Peace T. Hodgins pursuant to subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Panel is required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, any information that could identify the victim or a witness involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated October 6, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Donald Joseph Yeoman is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32¹ of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(b) 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);

(c) he contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);

(d) 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);

(e) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Donald Joseph Yeoman is a 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 respecting the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in London, Ontario.

Person 2

3. During the 2015-2016 academic year, Person 2 was a female colleague of the Member.

4. The Member and Person 2 were in the classroom and the class was playing dodgeball. Person 2 was standing in the classroom with another staff member and the Member came up to Person 2 with a dodgeball, squished the air out of it into her ears and said words to the effect of, “is this making you wet?” Person 2 felt uncomfortable as a result of this comment.

5. On another occasion, Person 2 walked into the classroom and the Member said to her, “come over here and have a seat on my lap and we can talk about the first thing that pops up,” or words to that effect as the Member motioned to his lap. Person 2 again, felt uncomfortable with this comment.

6. On another occasion, Person 1 and Person 2 were in the classroom. Person 2 leaned or bent over a table. The Member walked up behind Person 2 and with both hands pretended to grab Person 2’s buttocks. Person 1 witnessed this and felt offended and intimidated by the Member’s actions.

7. On several occasions in 2017, the Member engaged in inappropriate conduct toward Person 2. For example, during gym class the students were doing laps to music during the first part of their class. The Member walked up behind Person 2 and said to her, “I didn’t realize how big your boobs were until now,” or words to that effect. Person 2 rolled her eyes at the Member and disregarded the comment. Later during gym class, the students were doing jumping jacks. The Member said to Person 2 while staring at her chest, “C’mon Person 2 let’s see your jumping jacks,” or words to that effect. This comment made Person 2 feel deeply uncomfortable. Person 2 felt that the Member’s actions were creepy.

8. On another occasion, when the Member and Person 2 were on their way to assist students to get on the school bus, the Member approached Person 2 in the hallway and stated, “you shouldn’t be allowed to wear those pants at work,” or words to that effect. This comment made Person 2 feel uncomfortable.

9. Between 2016 and 2018, the Member blocked doorways when Person 2 tried to pass through. The Member put his full body into the doorway in order to block Person 2’s access to the exit. Person 2 tried to avoid the Member by moving her own body away and/or asked the Member to move away from the doorway. The Member responded by moving his body in order to pretend to pick Person 2 up. Person 2 would then step back so that they would not touch.

10. Further, the Member winked at Person 2 and said words to the effect of, “hey trouble.” The Member also whistled, catcalled, and sang Person 2’s name or would visibly “check her out” looking up and down Person 2’s body. This made Person 2 extremely uncomfortable.

Person 3

11. During the 2016-2017 academic year, Person 3 was a female colleague of the Member.

12. On one or more occasion in 2016, the Member greeted Person 3 inappropriately. As Person 3 walked in the hall, Person 3 would greet the Member saying - “hey, what’s up?” In response, the Member looked down towards his pelvic area and said, “nothing yet,” which made Person 3 feel uncomfortable.

13. On several occasions, when Person 3 approached a doorway and the Member would be coming the opposite way, the Member would intentionally block the doorway and not let Person 3 through.

14. Further, the Member whistled and/or clicked with his mouth at Person 3 as well as looked her up and down while she walked down the hall. The Member would also wait for Person 3 at the bathroom. This happened on several occasions and made Person 3 feel uncomfortable.

Person 4

15. Person 4 was a female colleague of the Member.

16. In November 2017, the Member pulled a chair out from under Person 4 as she was going to sit down and then pushed it back quickly. After replacing the chair for Person 4, the Member said words to the effect of, “better than what I was going to do.” The Member then proceeded to wiggle his fingers upward with his hand on the seat of Person 4’s chair.

Person 5

17. During the 2017-2018 academic year, Person 5 was a female colleague of the Member.

18. During the fall of 2017, the Member parked his vehicle next to Person 5’s vehicle in the school parking lot. On this occasion, the Member was in his vehicle during his lunch break as Person 5 walked toward her vehicle for her lunch break. As she approached, the Member got out of his vehicle and blocked Person 5’s entry to her vehicle. The Member wished to speak with Person 5 about an incident the previous day. After this incident with the Member, Person 5 no longer went to her vehicle for her lunch break because the Member’s body language and the way he spoke to her frightened her and she did not want to encounter him alone again.

19. Person 5 was in the staffroom speaking with another staff member. Person 5’s sports bra strap was exposed. The Member walked in on the conversation and stated words to the effect of, “don’t worry I love sports bras, they push boobs together and it’s even better when you lean on the table with them propped up.” Person 5’s face turned bright red and she walked out mortified. Person 5 could hear the Member laughing as she walked out of the staffroom.

20. The Member blocked doorways on a daily basis in front of Person 5. The Member put himself in front of the door where Person 5 was going to walk. Person 5 felt uncomfortable with the Member’s actions.

21. The Member also catcalled, whistled and “checked out” Person 5 up and down while she walked down the hall which made her extremely uncomfortable.

Person 6

22. During the 2017-2018 academic year, Person 6 was a female colleague of the Member.

23. As Person 6 walked backwards in the hallway pushing a student in a cruiser, she commented to a colleague that it was a workout. The Member approached Person 6 close to her body and said words to the effect of, “I’ll work you out.” Person 6 immediately turned around and told the Member that that was not what she meant.

24. On several occasions, the Member made a comment to Person 6 regarding her jeans and said words to the effect of, “your butt looks good in those jeans.”

25. On one occasion, as Person 6 exited the bathroom and the steel door closed behind her, the Member ran up to her and pinned her against the door. Person 6 was pushing to get out. The Member responded by putting his leg up against the wall to keep her in place. As Person 6 broke free from the Member, she stated words to the effect of, “you are too strong for me” and the Member responded and said that his leg muscles were strong from skating.

26. In December 2017, Person 6 walked down the hall when the Member walked toward her pushing a student in a cruiser. The student in the cruiser accidentally flung his hand out and put it between Person 6’s legs. The Member laughed. After the incident, the Member imitated the incident every time he saw her behind the backs of others so that Person 6 would be the only person that could see the gesture. Person 6 was bothered by this and asked the Member to stop.

Person 7

27. During the 2017-2018 academic year, Person 7 was a female colleague of the Member.

28. On several occasions, the Member catcalled Person 7. The Member also made a clicking sound at Person 7 followed by a wink when the Member passed Person 7 in the hall. In addition, on several occasions the Member also looked at Person 7’s chest and remarked words to the effect of, “I didn’t realize it was cold.”

29. On one occasion, the Member asked Person 7 if she wanted a spanking.

30. In January 2018, the Member accused Person 7 of being cranky and asked her if she needed a hug. Person 7 declined, but the Member insisted and pressed Person 7 into a hug, which resulted in Person 7 curling into a ball to try to avoid the unwanted physical contact.

31. On February 2, 2018, Person 7 was in the hallway speaking to a colleague when the Member approached her from behind. The Member pulled her hoodie over her head, which covered her eyes. While he did this, the Member’s groin made contact with her backside and/or buttocks area. Person 7 was shocked, uncomfortable, and immediately walked away from the Member. Person 7 reported the incident to the Board and the police. The Member was criminally charged with respect to the incident.

32. On September 6, 2019, the Member pleaded guilty to simple assault in relation to Person 7 and was found guilty. On December 11, 2019, the Member was given an absolute discharge by the Court. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the certified Court Information dated May 25, 2018. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Proceedings before Justice G. Orsini dated September 6, 2019. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” are copies of the Proceedings and Reasons for Sentence before Justice G. Orsini dated December 11, 2019.

Board Investigation

33. The Board conducted an investigation regarding the Member’s conduct. The Board terminated the Member’s employment effective May 25, 2018. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the termination letter dated May 25, 2018. The Member grieved the termination and an arbitration was held. The arbitration decision was released in January 2021 and the termination decision was upheld.

Current Status

34. The Member is not teaching in any capacity.

GUILTY PLEA

35. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

36. 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(14), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18), and 1(19).

37. 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.

38. In light of the Admitted Facts and 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

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on May 18, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 34 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. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of offensive behaviour towards female coworkers. He repeatedly failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries, more specifically by making rude and often sexual comments to or about them, by physically intimidating them and hindering their freedom of movement, and by touching two female colleagues without their consent.

9The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by breaching the ethical standards for the teaching profession that are set out at section 26.02² of the by-laws. In particular, the Member failed to uphold the ethical standard of “respect”, which imparts on members the responsibility to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development in their professional practice. The inappropriate, sexualized comments, the physical intimidation and the assault the Member has committed specifically on Person 7 demonstrate the Member’s blatant lack of respect for his colleagues. Furthermore, the Member failed to uphold the ethical standard of “trust” in his relationships with his colleagues through his conduct. The Member’s unwanted behaviour towards several female colleagues significantly undermined the relationship of trust that the Member was expected to foster with his colleagues. The Member’s conduct also fell short of the ethical standard of “integrity”, as his immoral actions made his colleagues feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

10The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with subsections 264(1)(c) and 264(1)(d) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Subsection 264(1)(c) requires members of the teaching profession to serve as positive role models for students and the other members of the school community. The Member has clearly failed to lead by example when he displayed disturbing or plainly rude behaviour with female colleagues, including by subjecting them to immature and inappropriate sexual innuendo, catcalling them or whistling at them. Subsection 264(1)(d) requires members of the teaching profession to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school. By creating a poisoned environment where his coworkers felt frightened, intimidated or offended, the Member has evidently fallen short of that obligation.

11The Member contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to subsection 1(16) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member was found guilty of simple assault in September 2019, which is relevant to his suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, as he caused harm to a colleague. Members of the teaching profession are not only responsible for the safety and well-being of students, but also for maintaining a healthy, safe and cooperative work environment with their colleagues. Those who engage in such criminal behaviour call into question their suitability to hold a teaching certificate, as teachers must be trusted to behave as upstanding members of the school community and to ensure that schools remain safe spaces for students and staff.

12The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and would reasonably be regarded as such by members of the profession. Committing simple assault on a colleague is morally offensive. Making repeated, unsolicited comments of a sexual nature to colleagues, which made them feel uncomfortable and understandably unsafe further demonstrates the Member’s persistently poor moral and professional judgment.

13Finally, the Panel finds that the Member’s actions were unbecoming a member of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust and confidence in the teaching profession as a whole is eroded when members engage in criminal behaviour and fail to promote a safe and collegial work environment by modelling inappropriate behaviour in the school community.

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 May 18, 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 via videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to 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 five (5) 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) within 90 days of the date of the order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, courses of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries and ethics, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner(s) 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, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) following review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner(s) will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed courses which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner(s) 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 30 days of his completion of the courses outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner(s) which:

(i) confirms that the Member has successfully completed the course and reports 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.³ 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. Laing, 2019 ONOCT 55, Ontario College of Teachers v. Fazl, 2019 ONOCT 2 and 2020 ONOCT 222, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Tye, 2022 ONOCT 23.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are (1) the number of colleagues – six in total – towards whom he displayed inappropriate and offensive behaviour, and (2) the repeated nature of this behaviour – repeated not only with the same colleagues, but also over multiple academic years. In terms of mitigating factor, the Member admitted his misconduct and pled guilty, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and saving several witnesses from having to come forward to testify in a stressful, adversarial proceeding. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct and failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with several colleagues warrant a reprimand. The Member’s behaviour is unacceptable in any setting, but even more so in a learning environment. The Member ought to have known his comments or actions – at times intimidating – were unwelcome. 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 five-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The cases presented above, though not factually identical, show many substantial similarities to this case, including the repeated nature of the Member’s actions against colleagues, and the offensive, often sexual nature of the Member’s comments. These cases, where suspensions ranged from four to six months, confirm that a five-month 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 June 2, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

19The Panel finds that the coursework regarding professional boundaries and ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a member of the teaching profession and will help him make better decisions in any future interactions with colleagues.

20The 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 Panel notes that the College By-Laws were amended on January 20, 2022. Section 32 was then renumbered as section 26.
2. 2Formerly section 32.02.
3. 3See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.