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 Peter Dalton Campbell, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS – and – PETER DALTON CAMPBELL (REGISTRATION #369122)
PANEL: Irene Dembek, OCT, Chair Rosemary Sadlier, OCT Pauline Smart
HEARD: December 7, 2021
Noam Uri, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jack Brown, for Peter Dalton Campbell Erica Richler, 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 December 7, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Peter Dalton Campbell (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had 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 March 25, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Peter Dalton Campbell is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);1
(b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act; 2
(f) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;3
(g) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(h) 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);
(i) 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);
(j) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Peter Dalton Campbell 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”). At all material times during the 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 academic years, the Member taught at the School.
2013-2014
During the 2013-2014 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student at the School.
On or about April 22, 2014, Student 1 was walking past the Member’s class when he stopped to say hello to a friend in the Member’s class. The Member came out into the hall and started yelling at Student 1. Later that day, Student 1 was walking in the hall when the Member pulled on his backpack. The Member told Student 1 to go to the office. When Student 1 refused, the Member pushed Student 1 up against a locker. The Member placed his arms on Student 1’s shoulders to hold him in place. The Member was physically aggressive with Student 1, and Student 1 was negatively emotionally impacted by the incident.
On June 20, 2014, the Board issued a letter of discipline to the Member. The Member was directed to participate in Behavioural Management Systems training. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the letter dated June 20, 2014.
2015-2016
During the 2015-2016 academic year, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4 were Grade [XXX] female students at the School and Student 5 was a Grade [XXX] male student at the School.
Student 2 struggled with [XXX] and had an IEP. The Member told Student 2 that she would receive a lower grade because she was “emotionally unstable.”
The Member told Student 2 to mentor two male students and that it would improve her “mothering skills.”
On one occasion, the Member appointed Student 2 as a mentor for two Muslim students, and told her that he was “putting her with two Muslim students because he wants them to be appropriated into our culture and Muslims don’t respect/listen to women, so they need to learn.”
On another occasion, Student 2 moved her desk out into the hall, to which the Member responded, “You should let men appreciate you more, because they will appreciate you more in the future”.
Student 2 was both upset and made uncomfortable by the Member’s various comments to her in class.
When Student 2 asked the Member a question, he would often put his hand on her shoulder, which made her feel uncomfortable. When Student 2 tried to create space, or move away from the Member, he followed her and kept his hand on her shoulder.
On occasion, the Member stood inappropriately close to students, which made them feel uncomfortable.
The Member told his class that a student who had dropped out of the class had mental health issues, that this student’s mother also had mental health issues and probably beats the student up.
On one occasion, Student 5 said in class, in front of the Member, that Student 2 had a “bomb under her hijab.” The Member laughed for several minutes at Student 5’s comment about Student 2. When students pointed out to the Member that he should not laugh, the Member continued to laugh. Student 2 cried as a result of this interaction. The Member failed to discipline Student 5 with respect to this behaviour.
On another occasion, Student 5 said in class to Student 3 that, “a terrorist like you shouldn’t be making comments.” Student 3 said to the Member, “Did you hear that?” The Member told Student 3 to take Student 5 into the hallway and that she should calm him down. Student 3 then told the Member she was insulted. The Member told Student 3 that she should take Student 5 to the office. Student 3 responded by asking the Member if he was “going to do something?” She also told the Member that she was really offended and was going to leave class. The Member said that Student 5 has “[XXX], he will calm down.” A number of students then walked out of the Member’s class.
After a different incident, students approached the Member to talk to him about how upset they were. The Member laughed when the students raised their concerns with him. The Member gave the whole group a lecture about how the Member cannot control what people do in the class.
Student 5 told a student that she should not be in the class as she was struggling to read in front of the class. The Member got up and said, “we should treat them all the same. Just like you, the disabled Asian, the same.”
On one occasion, the Member asked Student 3 if her father lived with her, to which she responded, “No.” The Member then told her that because her father was not there, that he would be like a father to her and would give her advice. Student 3 felt embarrassed and offended by the Member’s comments.
The Member made an inappropriate comment describing Student 4’s figure.
During a lesson on democracy, the Member explained to his class how homosexual men have sex, and described “mutual masturbation.” Student 2 felt uncomfortable in class as a result of these comments.
The Member frequently labelled students as having mental health issues, such as [XXX] or other conditions, and regularly made unsolicited comments about what he believed to be a student’s problem.
In November 2015, the Member was suspended with pay pending the Board’s investigation. On October 6, 2016, the Board issued a letter of discipline to the Member. The Member was suspended without pay for 2 days. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the letter dated October 6, 2016.
Current Status
- The Member retired his membership with the Ontario College of Teachers effective December 14, 2020.
Undertaking and Acknowledgment
- On the 11th day of November, 2021, the Member signed an Undertaking and Acknowledgment resigning as a Member of the Ontario College of Teachers and agreeing not to seek reinstatement of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. He further undertook not to seek or accept employment in any teaching position in any public or private school in Ontario, or in any other capacity for which an Ontario Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Member’s Undertaking and Acknowledgment.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading no contest 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 Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) 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;
(f) he understands that any agreement between his [sic] and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, 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 Panel withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and that he engaged in sexual abuse and sexual misconduct of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the 1(5) allegation was being sought as part of the negotiated agreement between the parties and because it could be duplicative of the allegation that the Member had contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. College Counsel submitted that it would be appropriate to withdraw the sexual abuse and sexual misconduct allegations after having assessed all of the evidence and given the global resolution agreed to by the parties, including the Member’s undertaking to resign his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on December 7, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 25 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that on numerous occasions, the Member engaged in inappropriate physical contact with and made inappropriate comments toward and about his students which amounted to physical, verbal, and psychological or emotional abuse of his students. The Member also failed to maintain proper order and discipline in his class during the 2015-2016 school year.
9The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member verbally abused students on numerous occasions, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. He yelled at Student 1 when Student 1 stopped in the hallway and said hello to a friend in the Member’s class. There was no reason for the Member to have raised his voice at Student 1. Teachers are required to maintain professionalism, even the in face of challenging student behaviour and disruptions to their class. The Member should have spoken with Student 1 in a more appropriate manner. In addition, it is clear from the Uncontested Facts that the Member repeatedly made inappropriate, offensive, and hurtful comments to and about his students, including that Student 2 would receive a lower grade because she was “emotionally unstable” and that Student 5 was “the disabled Asian”. The Uncontested Facts state that the Member “frequently labelled students as having mental health issues” and “regularly made unsolicited comments about what he believed to be a student’s problem”. Teachers should never demean students. They should never minimize or make disparaging comments about any real or perceived mental health issues or disabilities that students may have, especially in front of others. Such comments by the Member constitute verbal abuse of his students.
10The Panel finds that the Member physically abused his students contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member pulled on Student 1’s backpack as he was walking down the hallway. When Student 1 refused to follow the Member’s instructions to go to the office, he pushed Student 1 up against the locker, and placed his arms on Student 1’s shoulders to hold him in place. There was no evidence before the Panel that Student 1 was endangering anyone or that physical contact with Student 1 was necessary in any way. The Member’s contact with Student 1 was aggressive and inappropriate and constituted physical abuse of Student 1. The Member also physically abused Student 2 when he placed his hands on Student 2’s shoulder. Student 2 was made to feel uncomfortable by this physical contact and tried to create space or move away from the Member. The Member seemingly disregarded Student 2’s discomfort as he followed her and continued to keep his hand on her shoulder. In addition, the Member made students uncomfortable by occasionally standing inappropriately close to them. Teachers must maintain appropriate physical boundaries with their students. By repeatedly intruding on students’ personal space and making unnecessary and unwanted physical contact with Student 2, the Member violated students’ bodily integrity and therefore engaged in physical abuse of his students.
11The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused his students, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s unwarranted physical aggression toward Student 1 had a negative emotional impact on Student 1. The Member also made Student 2 feel uncomfortable by putting his hands on her shoulder and making demeaning or insensitive comments to her. Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member created a negative environment for his students when he:
stood too close to his students and made them uncomfortable;
commented on students’ mental health (e.g. with Student 2) or disabilities (e.g. with Student 5) or labelled students as having mental health issues;
laughed or otherwise failed to intervene or discipline Student 5 when he made inappropriate and offensive comments, like: there being a “bomb under [Student 2]’s hijab” (which made Student 2 cry), and that “a terrorist like [Student 3] shouldn’t be making comments” (which made Student 3 feel insulted and offended);
told Student 3 he would be like a father to her and would give her advice as she did not live with her father (which made Student 3 feel embarrassed and offended); and
told the class about how homosexual men have sex and described “mutual masturbation” to them during a lesson on democracy (which made Student 2 uncomfortable).
The Panel finds that Member’s conduct and comments in these instances were inappropriate and negatively impacted his students cognitive, psychological, or emotional development, and therefore constituted psychological or emotional abuse of his students.
12The Member failed to abide by the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession set out in section 32 of the by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Uncontested Facts show that the Member repeatedly failed to adhere to the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect”. His inappropriate physical contact of Student 1 and Student 2, and patronizing, insulting, offensive, and prejudiced comments to his students did not show respect, acceptance, or compassion towards his students. He did not honour their human dignity, emotional wellness, and cognitive development. He did not respect confidentiality when he commented on students’ mental illness or disabilities, and when he disclosed that a student’s mother had mental health issues and speculated that she beat the student. His failure to intervene when Student 5 made racist remarks, as well as his own comments about Muslims, did not model respect for cultural values, freedom, or democracy. The Member repeatedly failed to show professional judgment, empathy and commitment to his students’ well-being and learning, and as a result, negatively influenced his students.
13Furthermore, the Member failed to adhere to the practice standard “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” as he did not treat students equitably or with sensitivity when he singled them out and commented on their mental illness or disabilities. Rather than creating a safe and supportive learning environment, he actively contributed to a harmful and poisoned environment for his students, which resulted in students voicing their concerns to the Member and walking out of the Member’s class. The Member refused to take responsibility for his actions or inactions, he laughed at and dismissed student concerns, and he told them that he cannot control what people do in class. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct fell below the standards of practice for the teaching profession.
14The Member failed to fulfill his duties as set out in section 264(1) of the Education Act and therefore contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act requires teachers to set a positive example for students by teaching and modeling a number of morals and virtues. The Member, however, set a poor example for his students, including by:
singling them out and commenting on their mental illness or disabilities;
making racist remarks (e.g. that “Muslims don’t respect/listen to women, so they need to learn”);
being patronizing (e.g. by telling Student 3 that he will be like a father to her and would give her advice); and
being sexist towards his female students (e.g. by telling Student 2 that mentoring male students will improve her “mothering skills” or that she should “let men appreciate you more, because they will appreciate you more in the future”), and making an inappropriate comment about Student 4’s figure.
15Moreover, the Member did not maintain proper order and discipline in his class, as required by section 264(1)(e) of the Education Act. For instance, he did not intervene or discipline Student 5 when Student 5 said that Student 2 had a “bomb under her hijab”. Instead, he laughed for several minutes at the comment, despite students pointing out to him that it was inappropriate to do so. Similarly, when Student 5 made an offensive comment to Student 3, Student 3 expressed that she was insulted and asked the Member for a response. However, the Member did not discipline Student 5. As a result, a number of students walked out of the Member’s class. Through his immature and inappropriate responses to students’ misbehaviour, the Member demonstrated significant shortcomings with respect to classroom management, and he made students feel uncomfortable in his class as a result.
16The Member’s numerous instances of misconduct are manifestly disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member not only showed poor professional judgment, but he also abandoned his professional obligations including by telling students that he cannot control what people do in his class. In addition, the Member repeatedly made students feel uncomfortable in his class, by making insensitive or demeaning comments, or by failing to address similarly disrespectful comments made by others in his presence. Rather than setting a positive example for his students, the Member’s behaviour was shameful and completely unprofessional.
17The Member’s misconduct was also unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers hold a unique position of trust, authority, and influence over students. They are expected to prioritize the safety and well-being of students, and to facilitate students’ development into contributing citizens in Canadian society by modelling and teaching respect, sensitivity, tolerance, and diversity. The Member’s failure to do all of these things degrades the reputation of teachers and erodes public confidence in the profession.
F. UNDERTAKING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
18On November 11, 2021, the Member entered into an Undertaking and Acknowledgment (Exhibit 4) with the College in which he agreed to the following terms:
I hereby resign as a member of the Ontario College of Teachers with immediate effect.
I undertake that I will never seek reinstatement of my Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
I undertake not to seek or accept employment in any teaching position in any public or private school in Ontario, or in any other position or capacity for which an Ontario Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required.
I understand that a breach of this Undertaking and Acknowledgment may constitute professional misconduct and that in those circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers will be at liberty to institute proceedings against me.
I acknowledge that my status on the Public Register of the Ontario College of Teachers will be “Cancelled - Resigned”, and there will be a notation on the Public Register which will read as follows:
“On November 11, 2021, the Member resigned his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The Member has undertaken not to reapply for reinstatement of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The Member resigned his membership while a disciplinary proceeding was pending.”
- I further understand, acknowledge and agree that:
(a) I fully understand the scope, purpose and effect of this Undertaking and Acknowledgment;
(b) I am signing this Undertaking and Acknowledgment voluntarily, unequivocally, and without compulsion or duress; and
(c) I have been advised by the College of my right to obtain legal advice prior to signing this Undertaking and Acknowledgment, and I have either done so or have had an adequate opportunity to do so prior to signing this document.
G. PENALTY DECISION
19The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on December 7, 2021, 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.
H. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
20The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties and notes that the Member has resigned as a member of the College and has undertaken to never seek reinstatement and to never again work in any teaching position in a public or private school in Ontario or in any other position that would require a Certificate of Qualification and Registration. 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, in light of the Member’s Undertaking and Acknowledgment, 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. Fisher, 2018 ONOCT 11; Ontario College of Teachers v. Grima, 2020 ONOCT 183; Ontario College of Teachers v. Gacich, 2021 ONOCT 16; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bates, 2021 ONOCT 103.
21The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct and entered into a joint resolution with the College, saving witnesses from having to testify, and saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the repeated nature of the Member’s inappropriate conduct, and the fact that the Board had already addressed with the Member the inappropriateness of referencing students’ mental health and personal issues (see Exhibit C of Exhibit 2), but the Member did not learn from past mistakes. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties, in conjunction with the Member’s Undertaking and Acknowledgment is reasonable.
22The Committee finds that the reprimand, together with the terms set out in the Member’s Undertaking and Acknowledgment, will serve both as a specific deterrent to the Member and as a general deterrent, making it clear to other members that the profession will not tolerate the kind of misconduct exhibited by the Member. In view of the seriousness of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds it entirely reasonable and appropriate that the Member will no longer teach or seek to return to the teaching profession in Ontario in either a public or private school setting. Teachers must demonstrate professional judgment, show respect and care for students, be committed to student well-being and development, and show leadership in the classroom. The Member repeatedly failed to do this when he: physically, verbally, and psychologically or emotionally abused students; showed prejudice against Muslim people and people with disabilities and mental health issues; and refused to take responsibility for what transpired in his class. The written reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its significant concerns about the Member’s unacceptable behaviour. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
23The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: January 10, 2022
Irene Dembek, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Rosemary Sadlier, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Pauline Smart Member, Discipline Panel