DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Olisekwe 2022 ONOCT 08

Date: 2022-01-25

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

Maureen Nwanne Olisekwe, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

MAUREEN NWANNE OLISEKWE (REGISTRATION #484765)

PANEL: Emile Ramlochan, Chair Jessica Saffran Reimers, OCT Linda Staudt, OCT

HEARD: January 24, 2022

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for Maureen Nwanne Olisekwe Renée Kopp, 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 January 24, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Maureen Nwanne Olisekwe (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. College Counsel also informed the Panel that the parties had agreed to hold a single hearing on the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing dated April 13, 2020 (Exhibit 1) and the Notice of Hearing dated December 14, 2021 (Exhibit 2). Pursuant to subsection 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, the Panel heard the proceedings involving the allegations set out in both Notices of Hearing at the same time.

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 April 13, 2020, (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Maureen Nwanne Olisekwe is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);¹

(b) she failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

(c) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(d) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, including subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(e) she 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);

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

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated December 14, 2021, (Exhibit 2) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Maureen Nwanne Olisekwe is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) she abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);²

(b) she failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);

(c) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(d) she 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);

(e) she 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);

(f) she 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 3), which provides the following:

1. Maureen Nwanne Olisekwe 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 as an occasional teacher by the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the “Board”).

Student 1

3. At all material times on November 12, 2018, the Member was working as an occasional teacher at [XXX] School (“School A”) in Brampton, Ontario.

4. On November 12, 2018, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student at School A in the Member’s class.

5. During class, Student 1 accidentally cut the tip of his finger off while using scissors. He tried to stop the bleeding with paper towel, and went to the sink at the back of the classroom in order to wash the blood away.

6. Student 1 was unable to stop the bleeding. He approached the Member and asked for help. The Member was unable to see the wound itself because of the amount of blood. The Member told Student 1 to be more careful.

7. When the Member did not assist Student 1 further, he left the classroom with another student to go to the washroom to attend to his cut because it wouldn’t stop bleeding. They returned approximately twenty minutes later, grabbed band aids from a cupboard in the classroom, and applied them to Student 1’s finger.

8. The Member did not notice the two students had left and were absent from the classroom for that length of time. She found the class challenging, and was concerned that the students grew “more chaotic” because of the blood. The Member and three other students cleaned up the blood, which was on the floor, on Student 1’s desk, and around the sink area of the classroom. The Member did not notify the custodian or the office to clean and sanitize the area properly.

9. When Student 1 returned from recess, he grabbed additional band aids because of the blood around his finger. The Member advised Student 1 to be more careful.

10. Student 1 sustained a significant injury requiring medical attention. The School learned of Student 1’s injury after his parent attended the School the next day to find out what happened, and to express her shock that the School did not notify her immediately about the injury. She informed the School that Student 1’s doctor was concerned that Student 1 did not receive immediate medical attention, that classmates helped Student 1 wash and wrap the finger, and that Student 1 did not have the severed tip for re-attachment. Student 1 was absent from School for two days due to pain, and was seen by his physician daily for one week to check on and re-bandage the wound.

11. The Member acknowledges that she:

(a) did not assist Student 1 with his injury;

(b) did not alert the School office about Student 1’s injury;

(c) did not document the injury for the permanent teacher or fill out the appropriate forms for the injury;

(d) did not notify Student 1’s parents about Student 1’s injury.

Board Investigation:

12. By letter dated November 26, 2018, the Board restricted the Member’s duties as of November 23, 2018, and reassigned her home pending investigation.

13. By letter dated December 12, 2018, the Board advised the Member the outcome of its investigation demonstrated that she was negligent in her care for Student 1 after he cut his finger, and suspended the Member for five days without pay. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter to the Member dated December 12, 2018.

14. The Peel Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) investigated. By letter dated January 2, 2019, the CAS advised the Board that based on the information available at the time of its investigation, the concern that the Member’s lack of response to Student 1’s physical health placed him at risk for ongoing pain and/or complications was not verified.

Student 2

15. At all material times on November 19, 2019, the Member was working as a daily occasional teacher at [XXX] School (“School B”) in Brampton, Ontario.

16. On November 19, 2019, Student 2 was an [XXX]-old Grade [XXX] male student in the Member’s class at School B. Student 2’s classroom was on the second floor of School B.

17. Near the end of the day, the Member asked the class to prepare for dismissal. Student 2 was uncooperative in packing up his belongings. He refused the Member’s assistance, and was not ready at dismissal time.

18. The Member left Student 2 by himself in the classroom and walked the rest of the class down to the first floor for dismissal.

19. After dismissing the students, the Member went to the office to hand in her key and sign out. Student 2’s regular classroom teacher was present in the office and asked the Member how she found the class. The Member said the students were good but Student 2 took a long time to get ready, and the classroom teacher acknowledged, “he does that”. The Member signed out and left School B. She did not mention that she left Student 2 upstairs when she brought the rest of the class downstairs for dismissal, and she did not return to the classroom to check up on Student 2.

20. Shortly after the Member left, School B’s after-care program (the “program”) contacted the office to inquire about Student 2 because he had not shown up to the program. Student 2’s classroom teacher advised that Student 2 was present so he must be on his way. A short while later, program staff paged Student 2’s teacher to advise that Student 2 had not appeared. Student 2’s teacher, the Principal, and program staff immediately began to search the building for Student 2.

21. Student 2’s teacher found Student 2 upstairs behind her classroom door, in the dark and crying, with his belongings on the floor.

22. When the Member was contacted by the Principal about the incident, she acknowledged that she left Student 2 alone and unsupervised in an upstairs classroom, and that she failed to alert School staff that she left Student 2 unsupervised in a classroom.

Board Investigation

23. By letter dated November 25, 2019, the Board restricted the Member’s duties as of November 25, 2019, and reassigned her home pending investigation.

24. By letter dated December 18, 2019, the Board advised the Member the outcome of its investigation demonstrated that she failed to provide adequate supervision to a primary-aged student in her care when she left Student 2 alone, and that she did not inform the office or other staff of this fact or seek their assistance. The Board suspended the Member for ten days without pay. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter to the Member dated December 18, 2019.

25. The Member’s association has grieved both matters, and both grievances remain outstanding.

GUILTY PLEA

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

27. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19).

28. By this document the Member states that:

(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;

(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;

(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

29. 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

7Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing dated April 13, 2020 (Exhibit 1) and paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing dated December 14, 2021 (Exhibit 2), namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(5) and 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought because proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14) would be duplicative. In relation to the subsection 1(7.2) allegation, College Counsel stated that the withdrawal of this allegation is a by-product of the negotiation and adversarial process that resulted in the resolution of both matters in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. The Panel granted these requests.

8Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on January 24, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

9The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 25 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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 did not assist Student 1 who required medical attention, left students unsupervised, and did not alert the administration or parents about the incidents involving Student 1 and Student 2.

10The Member failed to adequately supervise students under her professional supervision, contrary to subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. While on assignment at School A, the Member was aware that Student 1 cut the tip of his finger off with scissors and was bleeding but did not provide any assistance to Student 1. She also failed to notice when Student 1 and another Grade [XXX] student left the classroom to attend to Student 1’s injury for approximately 20 minutes. On a second occasion, while on assignment at School B, the Member escorted her class for dismissal but left an [XXX]-year-old student (Student 2) behind in the classroom. She signed out from her teaching assignment and exited the school without mention to anyone that she had left the student behind. The student was reported missing, resulting in a staff search of the school building and a teacher finding Student 2 in his upstairs classroom, in the dark and crying. Teachers are responsible for the safety of all students under their supervision and must be able to account for their whereabouts. The Panel finds that on both occasions, the Member failed to adequately supervise students and jeopardized student safety.

11The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act, the regulations or the by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by contravening section 32 of the College’s by-laws, which prescribes the Ethical Standards and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. In particular, the Member breached the standard of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” which expects members to demonstrate dedication in their care and commitment to students. Similarly, the Member’s conduct fell below the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect”. Members are expected to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being through professional judgment and empathy (“Care”). Members are also expected to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development of students (“Respect”). The Member failed to demonstrate a commitment to students and embody the standards of care and respect by leaving Student 1 (a Grade [XXX] student) to attend to his severed and bleeding finger on his own and by leaving Student 2 behind at dismissal time. Student 1 subsequently required medical treatment for the injury and Student 2 (who was [XXX] years old) was found in the classroom “frightened, crying and unsure what to do” (Exhibit 3 at Exhibit C). Other than failing to assist either student in a timely way, the Member did not seek staff support during or after these incidents, and did not notify anyone about what had occurred, including the students’ parents. This conduct demonstrates a lack of professional judgment and empathy and a lack of insight into young students’ cognitive development.

12Further, the standard of “Professional Knowledge” requires members to be current in their professional knowledge and expects members to use it to inform their judgment in their teaching practice. The standard of “Professional Practice” expects members to apply professional knowledge to respond to the needs of individual students. After the incident involving Student 1, the Board reminded the Member of the expectation to ensure the safety and well-being of all students in her care, as per Board and Ministry of Education policies and the standards of the profession (Exhibit 3 at Exhibit B). Accordingly, the Member was expected to reflect on her prior experience (in the incident with Student 1) and to apply her insights to her professional practice in response to the needs of individual students in the future. After the opportunity to correct her actions, the Member continued to demonstrate similar behaviour when she failed to ensure the safety and well-being of a second young student (Student 2). The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct fell below standards of practice and the ethical standards of the profession.

13Member contravened subsection 1(15) on Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Subsection 264(1)(e) states that teachers are expected to “maintain […] proper order and discipline in [their] classroom and while on duty in the school”. The Member failed to comply with this duty by failing to provide adequate supervision and care to two students. She instructed an injured student to “be more careful” and focussed instead on cleaning up blood off the floor with other students and did not notice that Student 1 had left the classroom with another student. Similarly, she left Student 2 to fend for himself and focussed on the dismissal of the rest of the class. According to subsection 264(1)(d), members have a duty to assist in developing co-operation and coordination of efforts with school staff. By failing to seek assistance from staff or the administration who could have stepped in to assist the students, the Member’s conduct was incompatible with developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among staff, which then jeopardized the health and well-being of two students.

14The Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession are expected to exercise professional judgment. They are also expected to prioritize student health and safety in the classroom. Following the Member’s inattentiveness to Student 1’s injury and her decision to not inform anyone about it, Student 1 was absent from school for two days while receiving medical care. The Member was similarly inattentive with respect to Student 2, when she left him unsupervised in the classroom after dismissing the rest of the class and failed to inform anyone that Student 2 was left alone. The Member’s conduct demonstrates a failure to recognize what she is required to do to ensure the safety and well-being of students. As an experienced teacher, she ought to have known that she was expected to assist a student with an injury and that it is never appropriate to leave an [XXX]-year-old student unsupervised. She also ought to have known to seek help from other staff members and to inform the administration and the student’s parents about the incidents. The Member’s poor judgment in this regard demonstrates significant professional failings that call into question the Member’s ability to discharge her professional obligations. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s lack of judgment and neglect of her responsibilities toward two students under her professional supervision is disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

15Similarly, the Member’s conduct as described above is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The public’s trust in the teaching profession is eroded when teachers neglect to prioritize the health and safety of students.

F. PENALTY DECISION

16The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on January 24, 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 one month commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1st and August 1st, the suspension will commence on September 1st;

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

(a) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom safety and supervision, subject to the following conditions:

(i) 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 and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

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

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

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. 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. Gocking, 2019 ONOCT 52, Ontario College of Teachers v. Tadontsop, 2020 ONOCT 190, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Chéron, 2021 ONOCT 72.

18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are several aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member is an experienced teacher of twelve years whose misconduct demonstrated significant errors in professional judgment. Second, the Member’s misconduct involved two serious incidents that jeopardized the safety and well-being of two young students. Finally, the second incident at School B is aggravating in that the Member had recently been disciplined by her Board regarding a safety and supervision incident involving a young student under her professional care but did not improve her supervision practices following the Board discipline. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her misconduct and entered into a resolution with the College in a timely way, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and witnesses from having to testify. Further, the Member has not been the subject of College discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.

19The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to ensure that all students are safe while under a teacher’s professional supervision and to exercise professional judgment and mitigate risk when unforeseen incidents occur in the classroom. 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 conduct, the Panel finds that a one-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 in the range of one month 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 February 8, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

21The Panel finds that the course of instruction on classroom safety and supervision will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in her professional practice.

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. 1Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.