DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Ingram 2022 ONOCT 60

Date: 2022-06-03

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

Sean Anthony Ingram, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

SEAN ANTHONY INGRAM (REGISTRATION #279184)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair

Erin Durant

Myrna Tulandi

HEARD: May 31, 2022

Yufei (Fiona) Wang, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Sheilagh Turkington, for Sean Anthony Ingram

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 May 31, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Sean Anthony Ingram (the “Member”) attended the hearing and 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. College Counsel advised that the publication ban would apply to the identity of Student 1, who is under 18 years of age.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated November 18, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Sean Anthony Ingram 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);

(b) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);¹

(c) 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);

(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

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Sean Anthony Ingram is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. The Member obtained a Certificate of Qualification and Registration on August 25, 1997. Attached as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

3. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Algoma District School Board (the “Board”) as a Grade [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

4. At all material times, Student 1 was male Grade [XXX] student at the School.

5. On or about November 7, 2019, the Member was in a common area of the School and overheard an interaction between a teacher and Student 1 who refused to comply with the teacher’s direction to go to the office. After the teacher left the area, the Member told Student 1 that he was being disrespectful to the teacher and that Student 1 needed to go to the office. Student 1 refused to comply and mocked the Member.

6. The Member grabbed Student 1’s binder off the floor, began to walk out of the common area, and asked Student 1 to come with him to the office.

7. When the Member was walking into the hallway, his back was toward Student 1. Student 1 ran at the Member and kicked the Member’s leg. The Member turned toward Student 1, held his left arm up, and bent at the elbow at a 45-degree angle to prevent being hit again. The Member took two steps toward Student 1 until Student 1’s back was against the wall. The Member leaned into Student 1, with his left forearm and hand pressed against Student 1’s neck/shoulder area. The Member held his arm in this position for about 14 seconds then released Student 1 from the wall. The Member was calm during his interaction with Student 1.

8. On February 19, 2020, [XXX] Family and Community Services verified the concerns of inappropriate physical force used by the Member towards Student 1 in relation to the incident on November 7, 2019. Attached as Appendix “B” is a copy of the letter issued by [XXX] Family and Community Services dated February 19, 2020.

9. On May 26, 2020, the Board issued the Member a letter of discipline for his use of inappropriate physical force towards Student 1. The Member was suspended for ten days without pay. Among other things, the Member was required to attend a Behaviour Management System training. Attached as Appendix “C” is a copy of the letter of discipline dated May 26, 2020.

Prior Conduct History

10. On November 13, 2014, the Board issued a letter of caution to the Member regarding a concern that the Member allegedly yelled at students and that the Member’s “comments were of a threatening nature which made [his] classroom environment unsafe for students.” Attached as Appendix “D” is a copy of the letter of caution dated November 13, 2014.

11. On June 18, 2018, the Board issued a cautionary letter to the Member regarding an incident on June 8, 2018, where the Member allegedly became frustrated with a grade 7 class. Attached as Appendix “E” is a copy of the cautionary letter dated June 18, 2018.

12. On December 14, 2018, the Board issued letter to the Member regarding an incident that occurred during a [XXX] tournament on November 22, 2018. A student reported that the Member called him an “idiot”, shook a finger in the student’s face, and slammed a door. A parent reported that the Member yelled “Hey let’s go.” Attached as Appendix “F” is a copy of the letter dated December 14, 2018.

GUILTY PLEA

13. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-12 above (the “Admitted Facts”).

14. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 6-12 of 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 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

15. 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 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 in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or the opportunity to have obtained legal advice.

16. 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

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(7.1) allegation was being sought for two reasons. Firstly, because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of physical abuse in this case and secondly, as a by-product of the negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. The Panel granted the request.

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on May 31, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 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 set out at paragraphs 6 to 12 of Exhibit 2 constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member used inappropriate physical force with Student 1, who had kicked the Member, was misbehaving and had been disrespectful to another teacher. The Panel does recognize that the Member remained calm throughout the interaction with Student 1.

9The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Member breached the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect”. Members are required to express their commitment to students’ well-being (“Care”) and honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development (“Respect”). By using inappropriate physical force with Student 1, even though he had kicked the Member and was misbehaving, the Member demonstrated a lack of commitment to the student’s well-being and was disrespectful to him. As such his actions fell below the ethical standards of the profession.

10The Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(c) requires teachers to demonstrate the highest regard for a number of virtues, and it is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models for students. Section 264(1)(e) requires teachers to maintain proper order and discipline while on duty at school and on the school ground. The incident with Student 1 was an opportunity for the Member to show Student 1 how to exercise restraint and how to appropriately handle conflict. By instead resorting to physical means to control the situation, the Member acted as a poor role model. Moreover, the Member’s inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 showed that the Member failed, in this instance, to maintain proper order and discipline on the school ground.

11The Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and use appropriate strategies when dealing with challenging student behaviour. The Member did the opposite by resorting to inappropriate physical force to manage Student 1’s misbehaviour. Such conduct demonstrates moral and professional failings by the Member, and can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

12Additionally, the Member’s conduct, as described above, was unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By using inappropriate physical force to address Student 1’s misbehaviour, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and violated the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers.

F. PENALTY DECISION

13The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on May 31, 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 by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, courses of instruction covering classroom management and appropriate boundaries, with a focus on anger management. These courses shall be pre-approved by the Registrar and be subject to the following conditions:

(i) for each course, 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, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee; and

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, for each course, 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; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of each course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner 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

14The 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 is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Kuder, 2021 ONOCT 2; Ontario College of Teachers v. Mathews, 2018 ONOCT 69; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Morris, 2021 ONOCT 111.

15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is the fact that the Member engaged in misconduct towards a student even after having been previously cautioned several times by his Board for his misbehaviour towards students. 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 College discipline in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, despite warnings from the Board, warrants a reprimand. Teachers are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and use strategies that do not involve the use of physical force to manage challenging student behaviour. The Member did the opposite. 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.

17The Panel finds that the courses of instruction regarding classroom management and appropriate boundaries, with a focus on anger management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. The coursework should provide the Member with an understanding of how to manage challenging student behaviour without resorting to physical means.

18The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
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.