DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Doyon 2022 ONOCT 75

Date: 2022-07-19

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

John Patrick Joseph Doyon, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JOHN PATRICK JOSEPH DOYON (REGISTRATION #510533)

PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Lois Figg Wanda Percival, OCT

HEARD: July 14, 2022

Linette King, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for John Patrick Joseph Doyon 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.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on July 14, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2John Patrick Joseph Doyon (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.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated December 16, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that John Patrick Joseph Doyon 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) 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);

(e) 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);

(f) 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);

(g) 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. John Patrick Joseph Doyon 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 with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Sudbury Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”).

3. At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were [XXX] year-old male students in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class.

Inappropriate interactions with students

4. During the first semester of the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member used a long wooden dowel (a “pointer stick”) approximately the diameter of pen to assist him with keeping his place when making presentations to his class.

5. At least once a week, using either a pointer stick or a metre stick, the Member slammed, hit, and tapped the desks of students who he believed were not paying attention. Students describe the force of the slamming, hitting, and tapping as ranging from 3 to 5 out of a possible 5. Students reported being startled and scared by the noise.

6. The Member revealed students’ marks in front of the class by stating words to the effect of:

(a) “all the girls have level fours”;

(b) “the rest of the class has level threes”;

(c) “one student is getting a level one”.

7. When students asked the Member who was getting a level one, the Member told the class it was Student 1. Student 1 was not in the room at the time.

8. The Member’s disclosure of grades was upsetting to some of the male students in the class. Students reported feeling as though the marks were assigned for other reasons besides academic merit.

Inappropriate comments to and about students

9. During the first semester of the 2018-2019 academic year, in response to a student knocking on the classroom door, the Member said, “Next time you knock on that door, I’ll knock your head into it”, or words to that effect.

10. When referring to the pointer stick he used in class, the Member said to students words to the effect of:

(a) that if he liked them they would get the flat end of the stick, and if he did not like them, they would get the sharper end of the stick;

(b) that he would shove the stick up their “butt”, “ass” and “you know what”;

(c) that he would hit them with the stick if they were not listening.

11. Two students interpreted the Member’s comment about the sharper end of the stick to indicate which students he preferred and which he did not.

12. The Member told students, “Oh I want to strangle you” and “if you keep it up, I’m going to strangle you”, that he would break their arms if they were not paying attention, and, when students were asking silly questions or being disruptive, that he would tape their mouths shut, or words to that effect. These comments were made by the Member in jest. Some students interpreted the comments as jokes while others did not.

13. The Member frequently referred to students as “dumb”, “morons”, “dumbasses”, “idiots”, “losers” and “stupid”, or words to that effect. If a student was not paying attention to a presentation the Member was giving, he called the student “stupid”.

14. The Member’s comments had a negative impact on students. A student found the Member’s comments shocking. Another found it “weird” that the Member made fun of students.

Inappropriate physical contact with students

15. During the first semester of the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member flicked students’ ears in jest. Students recall him doing this to the male students when the Member didn’t think they were paying attention in class.

16. When giving high-fives, the Member accidentally hit the hands of students with his keys which were on a lanyard.

17. The Member used a pointer stick to poke, tap, and hit students on their backs, arms and shoulders. He also tapped Student 1 on the top of his head with the stick. A student described the force of these pokes, taps, and hits as ranging from a 1.5 to 3 out of a possible 5.

18. On at least one occasion, students told the Member that he couldn’t hit students. The Member responded dismissively, saying “oh ya, [sic] okay.” When students told the Member they could report this behaviour to the School principal, the Member responded by saying, “good luck, go ahead and try.”

Inappropriate interactions with Student 1 and Student 2

19. During the first semester of the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member told his class that he wished Student 1 and Student 2 were not in the class, or words to that effect.

20. The Member called Student 1 a “baby” and “immature” when he believed the student was being very disruptive in class.

21. The Member asked Student 1, in front of his peers, if he had lost his way to the “Autism Spectrum Disorder class”, or words to that effect. Some students laughed at Student 1. Another student was “shocked” that the Member would say this because the Member is a teacher.

22. During a class discussion about the stages of development, the Member referred to Student 1 as “immature”, or words to that effect. When discussing how children are not fully matured yet, the Member said “just like Student 1.”

23. The Member kicked Student 1’s ankle when Student 1 stuck his foot stuck [sic] out from under his desk.

24. The Member told Student 2 and other male students not to sit with the girls because “they are out of your league.” On one occasion when Student 2 was speaking with to a female classmate, the Member repeated words to this effect.

25. During a class discussion, the Member compared himself to Student 2, saying that he was a “short old guy” and Student 2 was “a big fat one”. When Student 2 told the Member this was rude, the Member responded by saying it was true. This exchange was heard by other students in the class.

26. Student 1 recalls the Member holding the pointer stick across the back of his shoulders. He reported that he felt annoyed when the Member would poke him with the pointer stick. Student 1 also reported that he “hates going to [the Member’s] class, it’s not fun.”

27. The Member’s conduct had a negative impact on Student 1. Student 1 learned to tune out the Member’s name-calling because he experienced it “every day” and noted the [XXX] of the Member “[making] fun of students in [XXX] [emphasis in original] class.”

28. The Member’s conduct had a negative impact on Student 2. Student 2 reported feeling uncomfortable with the Member and in the Member’s class. He recalls the member calling him names and believed the Member gave him dirty looks when he entered the class room. Student 2 tried to “be good” in the Member’s class, but ultimately gave up.

29. The Member’s treatment of Student 1 and 2 had a negative impact on those students, as well as others in the class. Other students reported feeling that Student 1 and 2 were treated unfairly and that the Member was “unnecessarily mean” to them. Students understood that the Member’s comments to Student 1 in particular were “meant as put-downs.”

Board Discipline

30. By letter dated October 15, 2018, the Board reassigned the Member to home duties effective October 16, 2018, while it investigated the complaints against the Member. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated October 15, 2018.

31. On October 15, 2018, the Board contacted the Children’s Aid Society of Sudbury and Manitoulin (“CAS”) with respect to the Member physically disciplining students. CAS investigated the allegations and substantiated risk of physical and emotional harm to students. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the CAS closing letter dated December 6, 2018.

32. From December 20, 2018 to June 28, 2019 the Member was on a paid sick leave due to stress and anxiety caused by the Board’s investigation.

33. By letter dated September 12, 2019, the Board suspended the Member for fifteen days without pay between September 13 and October 3, 2019. The Member was also required to complete a Behaviour Improvement Plan and participate in a classroom management workshop. As of May 28, 2020, the Member had not completed the workshop. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter to the Member dated September 12, 2019.

Prior Board Cautions

34. In November 2011, the Member was cautioned verbally by the School principal about his inappropriate comments to students. A student reported to the principal that the Member, in response to being asked what sport he liked, said “I like to hunt down kids and shoot them” or words to that effect. The student also reported that students don’t know when they can joke with the Member or not, that the Member “loses his mind and gets upset”, and that the Member called another student “idiot” and “dumbass”. The student’s parent contacted the principal about another student in the Member’s class. When the principal spoke to the other student, the student reported that the Member had said “I will fail you” and “I will mark you extra hard.”

35. On December 3, 2014, the Member was cautioned verbally by the School principal not to touch or make contact with students. He was advised about managing his emotions and stepping away from a situation before saying or doing something that would cross a professional boundary. He was also advised that future incidents of touching or making contact with students may warrant progressive discipline.

36. On May 26, 2017 the Member was cautioned verbally by the School principal with regard to his comments to students such as “Why would you buy a truck without test driving it first.” This comment pertained to addressing marriage and relationships with students. The Member was also advised to stop telling students he doesn’t like teaching [XXX].

GUILTY PLEA

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

38. 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(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

39. 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.

40. 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 the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on July 14, 2022, 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

7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 36 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 repeatedly made inappropriate comments to, and inappropriate physical contact with, students.

8The Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by making several inappropriate comments to students. The Member repeatedly threatened students with physical harm. For instance, the Member told a student “Next time you knock on that door, I’ll knock your head into it”, that he would hit students with the pointer stick if they were not listening and that he would shove the stick up their “butt”, “ass” and “you know what”. The Member also threatened students in jest. Some students did not interpret these comments as jokes. There is absolutely no reason for teachers to threaten students, even as a joke. Teachers must always communicate with students in a calm and appropriate manner. Additionally, the Member frequently referred to students using derogatory terms such as “dumb”, “morons”, “dumbasses”, “idiots”, “losers” and “stupid”. Moreover, the Member humiliated Student 1 in front of his peers by calling him “baby” and “immature” when he believed the student was being disruptive in class and asked Student 1 if he had “lost his way to the ‘Autism Spectrum Disorder Class’.” Furthermore, the Member repeatedly told Student 2 not to sit with girls because “they are out of your league” and belittled Student 2 by telling the student that he was “a big fat one” in front of class. Teachers must never make disparaging comments to students or belittle students, let alone in front of their peers. Such comments by the Member constitute verbal abuse of students.

9The Member abused students physically, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by repeatedly making inappropriate physical contact with students. The Member’s conduct included flicking students’ ears in jest when they were not paying attention in class and using a pointer stick to poke, tap and hit students on their backs, arms and shoulders. A student described the force of these pokes, taps and hits as ranging from a 1.5 to 3 out of a possible 5. The Member responded dismissively when students told him that he could not hit students. Additionally, the Member tapped Student 1 on the top of his head with a stick, held the pointer stick across the back of Student 1’s shoulders, poked Student 1 with the pointer stick and kicked Student 1’s ankle when Student 1 stuck his foot out from under his desk. The Panel finds that the Member violated students’ bodily integrity and therefore physically abused students.

10The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Agreed Facts demonstrate that the Member’s inappropriate comments toward and inappropriate physical contact with students had a negative impact on them. A student found the Member’s comments shocking, and another found it “weird” that the Member made fun of students. Additionally, the Member’s disclosure of grade level was upsetting to some students. The Panel considers it particularly unacceptable that the Member revealed that Student 1 was the student getting a level one. Additionally, the Member’s comment to Student 1 about autism made some students laugh at Student 1, which would reasonably have been embarrassing and humiliating for Student 1. Student 1 also felt annoyed when the Member would poke him with the pointer stick. The impact of the Member’s misconduct toward Student 1 was such that Student 1 reported that he “hates going to [the Member’s] class, it’s not fun”. The Member’s conduct also made Student 2 feel uncomfortable. Student 2 tried to “be good” in the Member’s class, but ultimately gave up. In addition to the inappropriate comments and inappropriate physical contact with students, the Member also used a pointer stick to slam, hit and tap the desks of students who he believed were not paying attention. Students describe the force of the slamming, hitting and tapping as ranging from 3 to 5 out of a possible 5. Students reported being startled and scared by the noise. Particularly given the power imbalance that exists between teachers and students, it is psychologically or emotionally abusive for them to repeatedly engage in threatening, aggressive, disrespectful and upsetting behaviour towards students. The Member’s conduct was therefore in clear breach of this provision.

11The Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the standards of “Leadership in Learning Communities” and “Commitment to Students and Students Learning” and the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect”. Members are required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities (“Leadership in Learning Communities”). They are also required to treat students equitably and with respect and to be sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning (“Commitment to Students and Student Learning”). Additionally, members are required to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice (“Care”). Moreover, members are required to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development and model respect for confidentiality (“Respect”).

12By repeatedly engaging in aggressive, threatening and demeaning conduct towards students as described above, the Member created a fearful and unstable atmosphere which is incompatible with the expectation that teachers provide a safe and supportive learning environment for students. Furthermore, the Member did not treat students equitably or with sensitivity. For instance, when the Member disclosed students’ marks in front of the class, students reported feeling the marks were assigned for reasons other than academic merit. Also, two students interpreted the Member’s comment about the sharper end of the stick to indicate which students he preferred and which he did not. Moreover, the Member singled out Student 1 and Student 2 when he told his class that he wished Student 1 and Student 2 were not in the class, ridiculed Student 1 in front of his peers and belittled Student 2 in front of the class. The Member’s conduct had a negative impact on students and particularly on Student 1 and Student 2. The Panel finds that by doing so, the Member also demonstrated a lack of commitment to students’ well-being which was disrespectful to them. The Member’s conduct therefore fell below the professional and ethical standards of the profession.

13The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(b) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. The Member failed to do so by repeatedly engaging in threatening, aggressive and demeaning behaviour towards students. Such conduct would reasonably be discouraging to students. Indeed, the Panel has received evidence that Student 1 reported that he “hates going to [the Member’s] class, it’s not fun” and Student 2 reported being uncomfortable in the Member’s class. Section 264(1)(c) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, humanity […] and all other virtues.” Simply put, teachers must exemplify these virtues and act as positive role models. By repeatedly displaying verbal and physical aggression in front of students, the Member acted as a poor role model. The Member therefore failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.

14The Member committed acts which 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 use appropriate methods to discipline students and be sensitive towards students. The Member failed to do so by repeatedly using aggressive, threatening and demeaning behaviour towards students, especially when they were not paying attention in class. Such conduct demonstrates significant moral and professional failings by the Member and can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

15Similarly, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. When parents send their children to school, they expect that teachers will keep them safe. By repeatedly engaging in verbal and physical aggression towards students and demeaning them, the Member undermined the reputation of teachers and eroded the trust which parents, students and the public place in the profession.

F. PENALTY DECISION

16The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on July 14, 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 by videoconference, 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 four 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 commencing or resuming a 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 or courses of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding student discipline, student sensitivity training and anger management, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a 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 and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon 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 course(s) 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 course(s) outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner(s):

(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

17The 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. Dayfoot, 2018 ONOCT 73, Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gedies, 2021 ONOCT 79.

18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, there is the repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct. Second, the Member’s misconduct was directed at several students. Third, the Member’s misconduct caused emotional harm to several students. Fourth, the Member engaged in similar misconduct despite having received three previous cautions from his Board. 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.

19The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct, despite several warnings from the Board, warrants a reprimand. Members must provide a safe and supportive learning environment for students and be respectful and sensitive in their interactions with students. The Member repeatedly failed to do so by engaging in threatening, aggressive and demeaning behaviour towards students. 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.

20Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a four-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 July 29, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

21The Panel finds that the course or courses of instruction regarding student discipline, student sensitivity training and 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. Should he return to teaching, the coursework will provide the Member with a clear understanding of how to discipline students without having recourse to aggressive and threatening behaviour and of how to be respectful as well as sensitive in his interactions with students.

22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1As of January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws has been renumbered as section 26.
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.