Ontario College of Teachers v. Aloise, 2022 ONOCT 9

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Aloise 2022 ONOCT 09

Date: 2022-01-03

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

Meric Aloise, OCT a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

MERIC ALOISE (REGISTRATION #448955)

PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair

Irene Dembek, OCT

Pauline Smart

HEARD: July 15, 2021

Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Andrea Wobick, for Meric Aloise

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 July 15, 2021, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Meric Aloise (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.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated March 18, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Meric Aloise is guilty of professional misconduct and/or is incompetent 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 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, 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. Meric Aloise 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. From 2001 to the present, the Member has been employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher. At all material times, he taught at [XXX] Institute (the “School”), in Scarborough, Ontario.

3. During the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic years, the Member taught Grade [XXX] at the School.

2015-2016 academic year

4. During the 2015-2016 academic year, Student 1 and Student 3 were male students and Student 2 was a female student, all in grade [XXX] at the School.

5. On or about May 30, 2016, Student 1 was arguing with the Member about writing a test for which he was not prepared. A shouting match ensued which was overheard by the hall safety monitor. The Member became anxious, angry and frustrated and, in the presence of the other students in the class, said to Student 1, words to the effect of “Will you shut up. Fucking Jesus.”

6. This incident took place a few weeks after the Member had felt threatened by Student 1’s reaction to the Member’s request that he abide by the school policy regarding phone charging.

7. During the same school year, the Member made comments to his class suggesting that the Koran incites terrorism and that terrorists do it for Allah. In making these comments, the Member meant to convey that terrorists twist the meaning of the Koran in order to justify violence. Student 2, who is Muslim, interpreted the Member’s comments as rude and racist and was upset by them.

8. The Member also made a comment about there being a lot of corruption in Pakistan during a discussion regarding revelations about Pakistan’s Prime Minister, and asked Student 2 her opinion. Student 2 was born in Canada and felt offended that the question was directed at her.

9. On another occasion, Student 3 had his head down on his desk and appeared to be sleeping while a movie was being shown in class. The Member stopped the movie and shoved an empty desk in Student 3’s direction. While the Member does not recall this incident, he accepts that it may have occurred.

10. The Member yelled and used profanity in class. Students stated that the Member’s volatile behaviour made them feel uncomfortable and afraid of him.

2016-2017 academic year

11. On or about September 6, 2016, at the start of class, students were talking and being noisy. To get the class’s attention, the Member picked up a chair and threw it across the classroom causing it to hit the doorframe. He also yelled at the students to shut up and be quiet. The students were shocked and frightened by the Member’s behaviour.

12. In the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 4 was a male student in Grade [XXX] at the School.

13. On or about September 7, 2016, the Member angrily approached Student 4 and, with his face close to the student’s face, yelled at him to put his phone away.

14. On or about September 8, 2016, the class was having a discussion about how the classroom environment had evolved in the past 100 years. In response to a student stating that children used to get hit in schools, the Member made an inappropriate, sarcastic comment to the effect of, “Oh, the glory days when you could hit children.”

15. As a result of these incidents, the Board conducted an investigation and, on December 12, 2016, issued a letter of discipline to the Member suspending him for 15 days without pay, which was subsequently reduced to a 3 day suspension. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter to the Member dated December 12, 2016.

Medical issues

16. At the time of this conduct, the Member was experiencing a significant amount of stress in his teaching environment which led to the onset of an acute [XXX]. Following his suspension for the conduct described herein, the Member suffered a worsening of his medical condition. The Member was subsequently hospitalized in January 2017 for [XXX]. The Member was placed on medical leave for the remainder of the school year. He returned to work as an occasional teacher in the spring of 2019, where he worked regularly in a variety of schools and classroom environments.

17. In or about February 2019, the Member was [XXX] re-admitted to hospital [XXX]. The Member remains under the care of [XXX], and pursued [XXX] subsequent to his conduct.

18. The Member returned to a full time teaching position as of January 2020. Between January 2020 and the present, the Member has taught both in person and virtually, due to the pandemic, with no issue.

GUILTY PLEA

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

20. 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(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

21. 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.

22. 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

6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought to avoid any duplication by proceeding under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14). The Panel granted this request.

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on July 15, 2021, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 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 18 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.

9The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member engaged in several categories of verbal abuse. First, he had frequent angry outbursts in which he yelled at and used profanity with students. In May 2016, the Member lost his temper, engaged in a shouting match with Student 1 about a test, and then swore at the student (“Would you shut up. Fucking Jesus.”) in front of the class. Second, the Member acted aggressively toward students while making angry remarks. On the first day of school, the Member yelled “shut up and be quiet” as he threw a chair across the classroom to get students to quiet down. The chair hit a doorframe. The following day, the Member angrily approached Student 4 and yelled into his face to get him to put his phone away. Third, the Member condoned the use of corporal punishment in the presence of students by lamenting the “glory days when you could hit children”. College Counsel submitted that students would have reasonably interpreted the Member’s lament in a threatening way in a context where he had already thrown a chair across the room two days prior and aggressively yelled into a student’s face the previous day. It is unacceptable for a teacher to yell at students or to direct profanity at students, even when faced with classroom challenges. It is also inappropriate for a teacher to speak about it being desirable to hit students. The Member’s angry verbal outbursts, use of expletives and inappropriate comments constitute verbal abuse of students.

10The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused students, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s verbal interactions and volatile and aggressive behaviour, as described above, were unsettling to students, making them feel “uncomfortable and afraid” or “shocked and frightened”. It is psychologically or emotionally abusive for a teacher to create a fearful and intimidating atmosphere in the classroom where students cannot anticipate how their teacher may react in any given circumstance.

11Furthermore, the Member made derogatory or culturally insensitive comments in class which also amount to psychological or emotional abuse of students. The Member commented that the Koran incites terrorism, which upset Student 2, because she interpreted the Member’s remarks to contain racist sentiment toward Muslims. The Member also made disparaging comments about politics and corruption in Pakistan and pointedly asked Student 2 for her opinion. Student 2 was upset and offended that the Member singled her out, particularly when expressing his negative views about that country. Though Student 2 was born in Canada, College Counsel submitted that she was made to feel that she should be more knowledgeable or accountable for events in Pakistan based on an unfounded assumption about her religious and racial background and nationality. The Panel accepts these submissions. Regardless of the Member’s intentions, he should have realized that such comments were offensive, not only to Student 2, but to all students. In addition to making certain students feel targeted or singled out based on their race or religion, such remarks perpetuate negative stereotypes that create a toxic learning environment for all students. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s verbal interactions with students, as described above, amount to psychological or emotional abuse of students.

12The Member failed to comply with the Act, regulations or by-laws contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Member failed to comply with section 32 of the College’s by-laws, which prescribes the Ethical Standards and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. Members are expected to govern themselves and interact with students while upholding the ethical standards of “Care”, “Respect”, “Trust”, and “Integrity”. By yelling at students, swearing at them, throwing physical objects in the classroom, shoving a desk at a student, making students feel targeted because of their racial or religious background, and by making students feel insecure about their physical safety in the classroom, the Member’s conduct undermined all the ethical standards. Furthermore, the standards of practice include an expectation that members promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities (“Leadership in Learning Communities”). The Member’s conduct violated this standard by creating an environment where students did not feel safe or supported. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct fell below the 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, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among their duties, members are toencourage students in the pursuit of learning, as described at subsection 264(1)(b) of the Education Act. The Member’s physical and verbal aggression frightened, shocked, and offended students and created an uncomfortable classroom environment, which discouraged student learning.Yelling, using profanity, throwing furniture or shoving furniture in the direction of students is a demeaning and threatening approach to teaching students. The Member’s behaviour also modeled unhealthy responses to anger and frustration in breach of subsection 264(1)(c), which is commonly understood to mean that teachers must model moral and ethical behaviour for students. Finally,subsection 264(1)(d) speaks of the duty to maintain proper order and discipline at school. This duty requires members to refrain from verbal and physical aggression as a classroom management strategy. By losing his temper and lashing out in class the Member’s behaviour was at odds with this duty.

14The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member engaged in a host of highly inappropriate behaviours. The Member jeopardized the safety of students by throwing a chair across the room. The Member swore, yelled, and behaved aggressively toward students, which made them fearful to be in his class. Finally, the Member made inappropriate comments, including ones that were offensive and perceived as racist by at least one student. The Member’s conduct not only goes against the professional training received by teachers but also demonstrates an alarming lack of self regulation and professional judgment. His behaviour undermined the safety and well-being of students, bringing shame upon the Member and upon the teaching profession. The Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s conduct is properly characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

15Finally, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Parents expect teachers to serve as positive role models when they entrust their children to the care of teachers. They also expect teachers to foster an encouraging learning environment for students. When members resort to angry and aggressive outbursts, use expletives with students, or make offensive or culturally inappropriate remarks to students, it discredits the member as a teacher and undermines the public’s trust and confidence in the teaching profession generally.

F. PENALTY DECISION

16The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty and Terms, Conditions or Limitations (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. The parties also agreed that a suspension of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration was warranted in this case but did not agree on the length of suspension to be imposed and made submissions with respect to this aspect of the penalty, which are summarized below. In an oral decision rendered on July 15, 2021, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and Terms, Conditions or Limitations and reserved its decision on the length of the suspension. The Panel 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 is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

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

(a) within ninety (90) [sic]² of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management, cultural sensitivity and professional boundaries, 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 his 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.

(c) within ninety (90) days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall undergo an assessment by his treating [XXX], Dr. [XXX] (the “Assessing Physician”). The Member shall provide to the Registrar, in a form satisfactory to him, a written report from the Assessing Physician:

(i) confirming that the Assessing Physician is the author of the report and has examined the Member within the last sixty (60) days;

(ii) confirming that the Assessing Physician, as the author of the opinion, has reviewed a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea document, Joint Submission on Penalty and Terms, Conditions or Limitations document and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee related to the matter;

(iii) describing the Member’s current condition including diagnosis and prognosis;

(iv) setting out the opinion of the Assessing Physician with respect to any monitoring, treatments or medications required to permit the Member to be fit to work in a Teaching Position and to ensure that the public is protected, including the frequency of such treatment and/or monitoring;

(v) setting out any biological or other monitoring that, in the opinion of the Assessing Physician, is required to ensure the Member is complying with the treatment;

(vi) confirming that, in the opinion of the Assessing Physician, the Member is presently taking all medications prescribed for the Member by all persons treating him (collectively “Treating Health Professionals”), for any condition impacting his fitness to practice and is presently complying with all other treatment recommended for him by his Treating Health Professionals in respect of any condition impacting his fitness to practice;

(vii) confirming that, in the opinion of the Assessing Physician, the Member is currently able to work in a Teaching Position without risk or adverse consequences to students or others;

(viii) recommending the frequency with which the Member should be seen by his Treating Health Professionals during the first twelve (12) months following the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee; and

(ix) addressing any other questions or issues that the Registrar may, in his discretion, require.

(d) the Member shall sign any consent forms required to enable the Assessing Physician to examine the Member’s health records or obtain any information that the Assessing Physician considers necessary to complete an adequate assessment and to provide the report described in paragraph 2(c) above.³

(e) Within sixty (60) days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall provide a Consent to Disclose Personal Health Information pursuant to the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (the “Consent”), to the Member’s Treating Health Professionals and the Member’s School Board (“School Board”) allowing each of the Member’s Treating Health Professionals and the Member’s School Board to notify the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers if:

(i) a deterioration in the [XXX] health of the Member occurs that may impact his fitness to practice;

(ii) there is reason to believe that students or any other individual is at risk of being harmed by the Member;

(iii) there are performance issues that may be attributable to the Member’s fitness issues;

(iv) the Member fails to renew the Consent directed to the Treating Health Professional or School Board; and/or

(v) the Member fails to comply with any of the conditions set out in paragraph 2(i).

(f) the Consent shall be renewed every twelve (12) months and shall remain in place for a period of two (2) years following the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, and for such further additional period as these Terms, Conditions or Limitations are extended.

(g) the Member shall provide to all Treating Health Professionals a copy of the Assessing Physician’s report, referred to in paragraph 2(c) above, within thirty (30) days of completion.

(h) the Member shall provide to the Registrar, no more than ninety (90) days after the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, and at any time thereafter as requested by the Registrar, evidence satisfactory to the Registrar that he has:

(i) provided the Consent to the Member’s Treating Health Professionals, and School Board; and

(ii) provided the employer with a copy of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee and the Joint Submission on Penalty and Terms, Conditions, or Limitations.

(i) at all times that the Member holds any Teaching Position during the period in which the Member is bound by the terms, conditions or limitations herein, he shall:

(i) take all medication as prescribed by his Treating Health Professionals or recommended by the Assessing Physician;

(ii) comply with the recommended treatment identified by the Member’s Treating Health Professionals and the Assessing Physician;

(iii) undergo periodic testing or monitoring as required by the Assessing Physician or the Member’s Treating Health Professionals to ensure compliance with the terms set out in paragraphs 2(i) (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv); and

(iv) maintain regular contact with all Treating Health Professionals at the frequency recommended by the Assessing Physician in his report at least once every six (6) months or at such greater frequency as recommended by the Assessing Physician or any one of the Treating Health Professionals.

(j) the Member shall maintain the scheduling with his Treating Health Professionals as set out in paragraph 2(i)(iv) for a period of two (2) years following the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, and thereafter, until the expiration of these terms, conditions or limitations, shall maintain regular contact with the Member’s Treating Health Professionals on an interval to be determined by the Member’s Treating Health Professionals and approved of by the Registrar.

(k) no later than three (3) months after the date of the assessment of the Assessing Physician, and again within one (1) year after the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, and a year after, or upon request of the Registrar, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from his Assessing Physician:

(i) reporting on the Member’s current health status;

(ii) reporting on any medication or other treatment currently prescribed or recommended to the Member and whether the Member is complying with same;

(iii) confirming who the Member’s current Treating Health Professionals are;

(iv) setting out, in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, the dates on which the Member was seen by his Treating Health Professionals, and stating whether the Assessing Physician recommends the Member continue to be seen regularly by him and/or by another Treating Health Professional and if so, at what frequency and for how long;

(v) stating whether the Assessing Physician recommends that the Consent should continue to be in place, and if so, for what period;

(vi) stating whether the Assessing Physician recommends that the Member continue to be monitored for a period of longer than two (2) years; and

(vii) addressing any other issue as required by the Registrar.

(l) if the Member’s Assessing Physician recommends extending the term of monitoring for a period of more than two (2) years, the terms as listed herein shall be extended for such additional time as recommended by the Assessing Physician or as determined by the Registrar.

(m) in the event that the Member commences work in a Teaching Position with another employer within two (2) years of the date on which the Member resumes or begins any Teaching Position following the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee or during any additional term approved by the Registrar, the Member shall comply with the requirements of these terms, conditions or limitations with respect to any subsequent employer.

(n) in the event that any Treating Health Professional ceases to treat the Member, the Member shall immediately notify the Registrar in writing. In such case, the Registrar may approve an alternative Treating Health Professional who shall continue to play the role of the Treating Health Professional described herein.

(o) any expenses related to the requirements of these terms, conditions or limitations shall be borne by the Member.

If the Member fails to comply with the terms, conditions or limitations set out in paragraph 2 above, he may be considered to be in breach of an order of the Discipline Committee.

The Member acknowledges that the terms, conditions or limitations set out in paragraph 2 will appear on the Register, on his Certificate and on any Statement of Professional Standing issued by the College and may be provided to anyone who asks to see them as they form part of the Register. The information to be recorded on the website version of the Register of the College will be as follows:

“By order of a Committee, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is subject to terms, conditions or limitations set out in the Decision and Order dated July 15, 2021.”

17After reserving its decision with respect to the appropriate length of the suspension in this case, the Panel carefully considered this issue and orders the following (in addition to its previous order dated July 15, 2021):

3. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of five (5) months. The suspension will begin on the 15^th calendar day following the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

18The Committee has the discretion to order a penalty that it finds appropriate in the circumstances of this case, in accordance with its powers set out at subsections 30(4) and 30(5) of the Act. The Panel carefully considered the submissions of the parties with respect to penalty and reviewed the relevant jurisprudence provided. The Panel determined that the penalty jointly proposed by the parties in the Joint Submission on Penalty and Terms, Conditions or Limitations, in conjunction with a five-month suspension is appropriate and satisfies the penalty objectives of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, transparency and protection of the public interest. The length of suspension is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member based on the prior decisions of the Discipline Committee discussed below.

(1) Reprimand

19The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members of the teaching profession are expected to provide students with a safe learning environment, to demonstrate commitment to student well-being, and to treat all students equitably and with dignity. The Panel acknowledges that the Member was experiencing a significant amount of stress in his teaching environment at the time of his misconduct and that he experienced an acute [XXX] four months after his misconduct occurred. Nevertheless, it is part of a teacher’s responsibility and a demonstration of care for the safety and well-being of students to recognize when they cannot effectively carry out their professional responsibilities and to take steps to avoid harm to students. By remaining in the classroom, the Member exposed his students to volatile outbursts, profanity and other inappropriate and aggressive behaviour that was both verbally and psychologically or emotionally abusive to 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. The Member attended for the delivery of the reprimand immediately following the hearing, as agreed to by the parties.

(2) Coursework

20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management, cultural sensitivity and professional boundaries will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him make better decisions in any future interactions with students. More specifically, the coursework will help the Member find appropriate tools and measures to address student behaviour and will help him gain further insight into the importance of respect for diversity and inclusion in his teaching practice.

(3) Terms, Conditions or Limitations

21The Panel finds that the terms, conditions or limitations (“TCLs”) jointly proposed by the parties are reasonable in the circumstances of this case. The terms, conditions or limitations, which relate to the Member’s medical condition, will protect the public interest by ensuring that the Member continues to comply with any prescribed treatments, that his medical condition continues to be monitored and remains stable, and that it does not deteriorate to the point where he might endanger any members of the school community. Reports provided to the Registrar will help the College to monitor the Member’s medical condition.

(4) Suspension

(a) The College’s Submissions on the Length of Suspension

22The College argued that given the different types of abuse, the degree of verbal abuse, as well as the physical aggression shown by the Member, the Panel ought to consider a six-month suspension as a starting point. However, the Member’s guilty plea is a mitigating factor. College Counsel submitted that it would be appropriate for the Panel to take the Member’s participation in the discipline process and his admissions into account to some degree. College Counsel argued that even with a reduction based on the mitigating factors, the seriousness of the Member’s misconduct still puts the duration of a suspension within a four-to-six-month range.

23The Member’s verbal outbursts and physical aggression made students upset and afraid and put their safety and well-being at risk. The Member’s behaviour also involved remarks that were perceived as racist by a student, which the College takes very seriously. The Member submitted that during the latter half of the 2015-2016 academic year and at the beginning of the 2016-2017 academic year, he was experiencing a stressful and challenging teaching environment. While the College accepts that the Member did not appear to have the resources and fortitude to appropriately respond to various stressors in his teaching environment, there is no evidence that the Member was medically incapacitated and therefore not responsible for his misconduct.

24Furthermore, after the series of incidents that took place during the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member had an opportunity to step back during the summer and evaluate his ability to perform his teaching duties before resuming teaching the following September. If he was experiencing an unmanageable amount of stress, he had the opportunity at that time to communicate that to his employer. There is no evidence that the Member sought any accommodation or treatment over the summer and his misconduct continued when he returned to teach in September 2016, including on the first day of school. The Member became [XXX] and was hospitalized in January 2017, four months after he had been disciplined and suspended by his Board. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s personal circumstances at the time of the misconduct do not excuse the Member’s poor behaviour with students.

25To support that a penalty including a four-to-six-month suspension falls within a reasonable range, College Counsel presented the following case law to the panel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Labbé, 2018 ONOCT 19 (Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision) and 2018 ONOCT 39 (Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision) [“Labbé”]; Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79 [“Antonenko”]; Ontario College of Teachers v. Lim, 2020 ONOCT 184 [“Lim”], Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2018 ONOCT 55 (Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision) and 2019 ONOCT 20 (Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision) [“Hall”].

26In Labbé, the panel made findings under the same heads of misconduct as in this case. Despite there not being the same level of physical aggression and outbursts as occurred in the present case, the misconduct in Labbé shares many parallels with the Member’s misconduct, according to College Counsel. The panel in Labbé ordered a six-month suspension in addition to a reprimand and coursework. College Counsel also cited Antonenko as being similar on its facts, where a teacher made various inappropriate comments to students that were rude and demeaning. In particular, that member was disrespectful and insensitive to students of Filipino heritage and other students of a diverse cultural background. In Antonenko, the panel ordered a five-month suspension in addition to a reprimand and coursework. College Counsel also submitted that Lim and Hall involved analogous misconduct where, among other things, members made inappropriate or angry remarks to students or acted aggressively toward them. In both cases, a suspension of six months in duration was ordered.

(b) The Member’s Submissions on the Length of Suspension

27Member’s Counsel submitted that the suspension should fall within a range of one to three months based on the mitigating circumstances of this case. First, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member’s participation in the discipline process and his guilty plea are evidence that the Member takes responsibility for his misconduct. While a member does not need to admit their misconduct (and it would not be considered an aggravating factor if they did not make an admission), Member’s Counsel submitted that it is a significant mitigating factor when a member participates in a hearing and has agreed to particular facts, as the Member has done in this case. Further, the Member has been employed by the Board since 2001 with no prior discipline history and has returned to teaching following time off in respect of his [XXX] health. Finally, Member’s Counsel submitted that the TCLs that the Member has agreed to abide by should be considered a significant mitigating factor with respect to the duration of the suspension imposed. Member’s Counsel reiterated that, at the time of his misconduct, the Member was experiencing significant stress in his teaching environment which led to the onset of an acute [XXX]. Further, the Member remains under the care of a [XXX] and has pursued [XXX].

28Member’s Counsel disputed College Counsel’s timeline of the Member’s [XXX] illness and took issue with College Counsel’s comments about the Member having not sought treatment or accommodations from his employer during the summer months. Member’s Counsel submitted that “[XXX] illness is not like a broken leg” where there is an injury followed by a healing phase. When it comes to [XXX] health, it is common knowledge that periods of [XXX]and recovery do not progress in a linear fashion. Member’s Counsel argued that while the Member was hospitalized in January 2017, that was not the onset of the Member’s [XXX]. The Member’s underlying medical condition was present long before Board discipline was imposed. Following the Member’s suspension by the Board, his condition simply got worse. In respect of the Member’s [XXX] health, Member’s Counsel submitted that it is an additional mitigating factor that the Member has pursued [XXX] and that he continues treatment with a specialist. In addition to taking positive steps to maintain his health, the Member has agreed to a significant intrusion on his privacy in providing personal health information to the College and to his employer, both to ensure that he continues to teach in good health as well as to ensure that the public interest is protected. The ongoing monitoring that the Member has agreed to is assurance to the public that a risk of a similar type of misconduct occurring is minimized.

29Member’s Counsel submitted nine cases in support of her position that a suspension in the range of one to three months is appropriate: Ontario College of Teachers v. Folkes, 2013 ONOCT 21 [“Folkes”]; Ontario College of Teachers v. Clements, 2016 ONOCT 11 [“Clements”]; Ontario College of Teachers v. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48 [“Manga”]; Ontario College of Teachers v. Campbell, 2018 ONOCT 28 [“Campbell”]; Ontario College of Teachers v. Chong Yen, 2018 ONOCT 56 and 2019 ONOCT 28 [“Chong Yen”]; Ontario College of Teachers v. Nolis, 2019 ONOCT 129 [“Nolis”], Ontario College of Teachers v. Von Eppinghoven, 2020 ONOCT 139 [“Von Eppinghoven”]; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Carle, 2020 ONOCT 135 [“Carle”].

30Member’s Counsel argued that Folkes, Chong Yen, Campbell and Von Eppinghoven have sufficiently similar facts to the present case to give the Panel comfort that a suspension within a one-to-three-month range is appropriate. In Folkes, the member threw chairs in the presence of students, used profane language, and bullied or belittled colleagues and staff at the school. The panel ordered a reprimand, an anger management course, and a medical assessment of the member regarding his fitness to teach, but did not order a suspension. Member’s Counsel also submitted that the Chong Yen cases involved similar allegations of professional misconduct in two separate complaints where, among other things, the member used inappropriate language in the classroom, including derogatory gendered terms, swore, and slammed a metre stick on a desk. The panel declined to order a suspension in relation to the first complaint, which was contested but unopposed. The second complaint, which involved similarly inappropriate comments and gestures, resulted in a penalty that included a three-month suspension. Campbell involved incidents where the member made aggressive physical contact with two students. The panel accepted the parties’ joint submission and ordered a one-month suspension in addition to coursework and a reprimand. Finally, Member’s Counsel submitted that Von Eppinghoven, which involved a member leaving a class in the care of a student teacher, raising her voice at a student and throwing a book which then hit a student, was analogous to the Member’s case. This conduct also attracted a one-month suspension as part of a global agreement on finding and penalty.

31Member’s Counsel also reviewed four cases that she argued contained more serious facts than in the present case, but where suspensions ordered were four months or shorter in duration. In Clements (three-month suspension), a member was found to have repeatedly made offensive or intimidating comments to students. In Manga (four-month suspension), a member insulted a student about his intelligence and made a variety of derogatory or racist statements to his class about people of certain ethnic groups over a three-year period. In Nolis (three-and-a-half-month suspension), a member made comments that put down, discouraged, and upset students over a three-year period. Finally, in Carle (three-month suspension), a member yelled at students, purposely mispronounced a student’s name, held a student by the arm and pulled her, and played an inappropriate video in class.

(c) The College’s Reply Submissions on the Length of Suspension

32College Counsel disputed the Member’s characterization of the TCLs that the Member agreed to as a mitigating factor with respect to the duration of suspension that the Panel should impose. She argued that the fact that the Member agreed to TCLs with the College should not affect the duration of the suspension. The purpose of suspensions and TCLs are different. TCLs are prospective and they are not intended to be punitive on a member. They are designed to protect the public and to help a member return to work and practice the profession safely, with appropriate safeguards and supports in place. The TLCs that the Member agreed to will ensure that the Member’s health will be monitored and that appropriate measures will be put in place to minimize risk to students and to prevent any future harm if there were a relapse or deterioration in the Member’s health condition.

33A suspension, on the other hand, is retrospective and has a punitive function. A suspension is based on the nature and severity of the misconduct that has already occurred and the length of suspension imposed is in response to that past misconduct. It is therefore not appropriate for Member’s Counsel to argue that because the Member is agreeing to abide by TCLs related to the monitoring of his health that his misconduct should be treated less severely and therefore a shorter suspension should be imposed. The fact and contents of the TCLs should not be treated as a mitigating circumstance that affects the Panel’s determination of an appropriate suspension.

(d) The Panel’s Decision and Reasons on the Length of the Suspension

34The Panel carefully considered the submissions of the parties with respect to the length of suspension and reviewed the relevant jurisprudence provided. Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel concluded that a five-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate in conjunction with the penalty jointly proposed by the parties in the Joint Submission on Penalty and Terms, Conditions or Limitations.

35In determining that a five-month suspension is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member, the 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’s misconduct was not an isolated incident but rather a pattern of misconduct spanning the latter half of the 2015-2016 school year and continuing into the 2016-2017 school year, which affected multiple cohorts of Grade [XXX] students. Second, the Member’s comments to Student 2 about Islam and Pakistan, which Student 2 considered racist, were highly objectionable and offensive and were made in class and heard by other students. Third, the Member’s inappropriate and volatile behaviour (e.g., his inappropriate comments, yelling, swearing and physical aggression) had a negative psychological or emotional impact on Grade [XXX] students who felt intimidated, shocked, frightened, uncomfortable, upset, or afraid at school.

36In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct and pled guilty to six heads of misconduct, reducing the time and expense of a contested hearing, and saving student witnesses from having to testify in a hearing. Further, the Member has not previously been the subject of discipline proceedings during his 20-year teaching career, and, aside from the conduct at issue in this case, he continues to teach without incident.

37The Panel also considered Member’s Counsel’s submission that the Member’s misconduct occurred while the Member was experiencing stress in his teaching environment and a deterioration in his [XXX] health. The Panel recognizes that in moments of stress and anger, the Member may have been acting out of character, such that he was less able to manage his emotions and respond constructively to the challenges associated with students being noisy, disruptive, or non-compliant with his instructions in a classroom setting. However, as indicated by College Counsel, this is not an incapacity case. The Member has made admissions to professional misconduct in a disciplinary hearing. During this hearing, the Panel received no evidence that the Member’s behaviour was caused or triggered by an underlying [XXX] health issue or that a [XXX] health condition impacted his ability to execute his teaching duties. Under these circumstances, the Panel cannot consider the Member’s health as a mitigating factor that would impact the length of the suspension he should serve.

38Support for the Panel’s finding is also articulated in Clements, which was provided to the Panel by Member’s Counsel. Mr. Clements, like Mr. Aloise, argued that he was unable to cope with the stress of his job and submitted that he had to take a medical leave of absence to address his [XXX] health. In that case, the Panel noted that there were no incapacity issues under consideration. The member’s submission in Clements that he was in a stressful environment and had to take medical leave to address [XXX] health concerns did not mitigate the length of the suspension.⁴

39Considering the gravity of the Member’s misconduct including the types and degrees of verbal abuse (e.g., the ill-considered and offensive remarks that the Member made to a racialized student in front of her peers, as well as the multiple verbal outbursts that involved profanity or shouting and yelling at students) and the degree of physical aggression that jeopardized student safety (e.g., throwing a chair across the classroom of seated students, shoving an empty desk toward a student and standing very close to a student during an argument), the Panel would have considered a six-month suspension. However, given the mitigating circumstances in this case – the Member’s cooperation and admissions as well as the absence of a prior discipline history – the Panel determined that a five-month suspension is appropriate.

40The Panel finds that the gravity of the Member’s misconduct is most comparable to Labbé and Antonenko and relied on the facts and dispositions in these cases to determine that a suspension of five months is reasonable. Like the present case, Labbé involved abusive behaviour toward students. In Labbé, the member was intimidating and brusque with young students. The member shouted, sometimes in students’ faces, and made students cry. Some young students were so afraid of her that they wet their pants. While the present case involves acts of physical and verbal aggression (throwing a chair, shoving an empty desk in the direction of Student 3, getting into Student 4’s face) that made students afraid of the Member, in Labbé the member relied on verbal “constructive fear” tactics in the classroom. In both cases, the members’ intimidating behaviour was found to be verbally and psychologically or emotionally abusive to students. Also resembling the present case, the member in Labbé testified about stressors in her work environment but was nevertheless found to have committed professional misconduct under the same heads of misconduct as in the Member’s case. The penalty in Labbé included a six-month suspension, a reprimand and coursework on anger management and classroom management.

41The Member argued that the six-month suspension ordered in Labbé reflected more serious misconduct than the present case because it involved a significant student safety incident (i.e., on one occasion that member’s behaviour contributed to a young student running away from school). The Panel disagrees with the Member’s submission. While a student going missing from school is a very serious risk to student safety, in the present case the Member hurled a chair across a classroom of seated students, which also poses a significant and imminent physical safety risk as the chair could have hit and injured a student or students. Based on these facts, the Panel cannot draw the conclusion that one set of circumstances is potentially riskier than the other and therefore amounts to more serious misconduct. Given the safety incident involving the chair throwing, the level of physical aggression accompanying the Member’s verbal outbursts with students, and the emotional harm occasioned by the Member’s use of profanity and inappropriate remarks, the Panel considers the misconduct in the present case to be in line with Labbé, and on the upper end of the four-to-six-month penalty range. Unlike Labbé which proceeded through a contested hearing where that member denied all allegations, the mitigating circumstances in this Member’s case are that he cooperated with the College’s discipline process and pled guilty to professional misconduct, which warrants a credit on the length of suspension.

42The Panel also found that the pattern of behaviour in Antonenko has many direct parallels with the Member’s case. The uncontested facts in Antonenko describe that the member belittled, yelled and swore at students, and made sarcastic and racist comments to students. Among other things, she disallowed Filipino students from speaking in their mother tongue in class, tried to block certain ESL students from being in her class, and scolded a student for dropping garbage in the compost, while forcefully grabbing his arm. Antonenko proceeded by agreement and joint submission on penalty. It included a five-month suspension, a reprimand and coursework on appropriate professional boundaries with students, classroom management, and diversity and sensitivity training.

43The member in Antonenko pleaded no contest to verbal, physical, and psychological or emotional abuse of students. There were incidents of swearing at students, yelling at them, and making verbally abusive remarks (e.g., “you piece of shit”, “disrespectful”, “useless”) that caused distress to students. There was one incident where the member grabbed a student’s arm which stands apart from the present case where there were acts of physical aggression but ultimately no physical contact with students. By comparison, the Member’s spontaneous volatility posed a threat to students’ physical safety (i.e., throwing a chair in a classroom full of students), which, due to the level of physical aggression is arguably more serious conduct than the physical contact in Antonenko. The seriousness of all the incidents combined is therefore still comparable.

44While Member’s Counsel submitted that Antonenko was more serious due to the number of discrete incidents involved, the Panel is unable to draw the conclusion that, simply by virtue of a higher number of incidents, the member’s conduct in Antonenko was more serious than the Member’s conduct in the present case. Both cases involve a pattern of similar behaviour demonstrated through multiple incidents that took place over a prolonged period. The present case involved at least eight separate incidents and two cohorts of Grade [XXX] students over two academic years. These students were exposed to spontaneous outbursts of anger and inappropriate remarks by their teacher on multiple occasions.

45Member’s Counsel also argued that Antonenko should be deemed more serious because it involved students who may have been vulnerable. However, the Panel is of the view that all students are made vulnerable when, in a flare of temper, a teacher acts in unpredictable ways and exposes students to verbally and psychologically abusive behaviour. Whereas the member in Antonenko had previously been warned and counselled about her tone and inappropriate remarks to students, which was an aggravating circumstance in that case, she also entered into a resolution with the College, which was mitigating. Similarly, though the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct in this case is equally if not slightly more serious, the fact that the Member had no prior disciplinary history and that he entered into a resolution with the College is also mitigating. The Panel therefore finds that overall, the misconduct in Antonenko is comparable to the misconduct in the present case and that the five-month penalty in Antonenko sets an appropriate precedent for the length of suspension in this case.

46The Panel also found Manga to be of assistance in making its determination about a five-month suspension. The member in Manga repeatedly insulted students about their intelligence in class and made numerous derogatory or racist remarks, including ascribing certain talents (or lack thereof) to people of specific ethnicities. The Panel found that the nature of the verbally and psychologically or emotionally abusive comments made in Manga were comparable with the present case. Given that a four-month suspension was ordered in Manga for verbally abusive comments, the Panel was assured that a suspension greater than four months would be appropriate in the present case, taking into account other serious aspects of the Member’s misconduct, including: yelling, expressing the wish that teachers could still hit children, and physical acts of violence like throwing a chair that made students fear for their safety in the classroom.

47In addition, the Panel found that the misconduct in Carle, which resulted in a three-month suspension, was considerably less serious than the misconduct at issue in the present case. In Carle, the member was disrespectful, demeaning, and insensitive to students’ special needs. He also pulled a student by her arm to get her to leave the classroom and was unprofessional when he spoke about his personal life to students. However, there was nothing comparable in gravity to the racist comments, physical aggression, swearing at students or explosive temper found in the present case. When these aspects of the Member’s behaviour are considered, Carle also supports the Panel’s finding that a suspension considerably longer than three months is appropriate.

48The decision in Lim assured the Panel that a six-month suspension would fall on the upper end of the reasonable range, as the Panel considered the misconduct in that case to be slightly more serious than that in the present case. In Lim, the member used profanity, yelled at students until they started to cry, threw a binder in the direction of a student that landed on his hand, and made racist or inappropriate comments or gestures (such as referring to a student as “that black boy” and making a physical gesture to signal that a student was overweight). The member also left notes for the classroom teacher containing highly inappropriate comments about students, called a principal incompetent, and uttered a threat to a vice-principal while the member was being escorted off school property. Although several aspects of that member’s conduct did not involve students directly, the Panel considered that the conduct that did occur in front of students alone would place the penalty in the four-to-five-month range while the additional conduct involving colleagues makes a six-month suspension appropriate.

49Similarly, the Panel finds that the misconduct in Hall, which resulted in a six-month suspension, involved slightly more serious misconduct than that in the present case. Hall involved incidents of physical abuse (e.g., taking hold of and shaking students and pushing students, which made students afraid of the member) as well as verbal and psychological or emotional abuse of young students by yelling at students about following directions and making belittling comments to students about their work and abilities. Though less comparable on the facts, the Panel finds that the level of physical aggression toward students in Hall is more serious that in the Member’s case, whereas the incidents of verbal abuse in Hall are arguably not as serious as in the Member’s case. On balance, because of the more serious physical abuse in Hall, that decision suggests that a slightly more lenient penalty would be appropriate in the present case.

50The Panel found that three of the cases submitted by Member’s Counsel were too dissimilar on their facts to be determinative of the appropriate length of suspension. First, the Panel did not consider Folkes to be analogous on the facts, allegations, or findings. In addition to being a very dated case, the Panel also considered it unhelpful because it was a case about a member’s insubordination and poor workplace behaviour with colleagues and staff. There was no abuse of students alleged or found in Folkes. Even though students were present when the member threw chairs and sometimes when he used profane language, this conduct was not directed at students, unlike in the present case.

51Second, the Panel determined that the nature of the conduct in Chong Yen was categorically different from the case of this Member which involved directing and acting out his anger toward a group of noisy or uncompliant teenagers. While the member's behaviour in Chong Yen involved derogatory language, swearing and acts such as humping a wall and hitting a desk with a metre stick, this conduct had the tenor of buffoonery or a teacher using inappropriate slapstick humour. Similarly, the panel in the second Chong Yen case noted that, while the comments made by that member were unprofessional and inappropriate, it was not established that they “caus[ed] or threaten[ed] to cause lasting harm to a child”.⁵ The two Chong Yen cases involved no violent outbursts or aggressive conduct with students that intimidated or frightened them. Accordingly, no findings of verbal and psychological or emotional abuse were made. Consequently, the Panel finds the Chong Yen misconduct to be significantly less serious than the misconduct in the present case.

52Third, the Panel also did not find Von Eppinghoven to be of assistance in making its penalty determination. The most serious behaviour in that case involved inadequate supervision for leaving a student teacher with the class, and the member raising her voice and throwing a book in the student’s direction that unintentionally struck a student’s arm. The teacher was demonstrating to a student who had thrown a pencil at another student why it is inappropriate to throw things. While this conduct was unprofessional and misguided, there was nothing to suggest that it came from anger or frustration, nor were students intimidated or afraid of the member. The Panel therefore finds these facts to be significantly less serious than in the Member’s case which involved aggressive and violent acts.

53The Panel found that three cases cited by Member’s Counsel fell into the same category of conduct on the facts, but the behaviour did not rise to the same level of seriousness as in the present case. First, in Nolis, (three-and-a-half-month suspension) an occasional teacher made condescending or discouraging comments to students over a prolonged period and there was an incident of inadequate supervision. While the member did tell a student or students to “shut up”, to “stop flapping your mouths and keep them shut” and “you guys don’t have a bright future”, these comments still fit in the mid to low end of the spectrum of misconduct. Though that member “undermined the confidence of students with academic struggles and created an atmosphere of intimidation instead of encouragement”⁶ Mr. Nolis did not make racist or culturally insensitive comments, yell, or demonstrate physical aggression or outburst of anger to frighten students or make them feel unsafe in his presence. Indeed, it was noted by the panel that had the member’s comments been “racist, homophobic or culturally insensitive”, that would have placed his penalty “at the top of the range”⁷ and the suspension would have been higher than the three and a half months ordered.

54Second, in Clements (three-month suspension), a member made highly inappropriate comments to students, including calling them “stupid”, “idiot” and “retard”; told a student she should go back to her own country if she did not want to learn; and told a student, “If I was allowed, I would smack you right now”. The Member also grabbed a student by the front of her coat and yelled at her to go to the office. Findings of verbal, physical, and psychological or emotional abuse were made in this case. When it comes to that member’s belittling comments (that could be considered discriminatory toward individuals with disabilities), as well as his racially insensitive comments, Clements is analogous to the present case. However, the Panel still found that the behaviour was not comparatively worse overall because of the frightening and repeated display of angry outbursts by the Member which were not present in Clements. Further, the Panel notes that given that Clements is a 2016 decision, if it were before a panel of the Discipline Committee today, that member’s racist and discriminatory comments would likely have attracted a more severe penalty.

55Finally, the Panel considers that Campbell, which resulted in a one-month suspension, was not instructive given that the penalty ordered in that case was the result of a joint submission on penalty, unlike the present case where the duration of the suspension was contested. Like the present case, Campbell involved serious misconduct such as yelling and multiple incidents where the member made aggressive physical contact with two students with special needs. Given the similar severity of the misconduct in Campbell, the Panel believes that it would likely have resulted in a lengthier suspension if that portion of the hearing were contested, as it is in the present case. The Panel further notes that nothing in Campbell suggested that the students were fearful of the member, unlike in the present case. The Panel therefore finds that the considerably longer suspension it has ordered in the Member’s case is reasonable, despite the inconsistency with the suspension duration in Campbell.

56The Panel is therefore satisfied that a five-month suspension ordered is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. 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. The Member’s suspension will begin on January 18, 2022, which is 15 days following the Panel’s Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order.

57The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and that it meets the objectives of deterrence and rehabilitation as well as the principles of transparency and protection of the public interest.

Date: January 3, 2022

Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel

Irene Dembek, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Pauline Smart Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at College Counsel’s request.
2. 2Based on the parties’ submissions during the hearing, the Panel understands that this period refers to 90 “days”.
3. 3During the hearing, the parties corrected a typographical error contained in the Joint Submission on Penalty and Terms, Conditions or Limitations to clarify that any reference to paragraph “3” or its sub-paragraphs should be replaced with a reference to paragraph “2” or its sub-paragraphs.
4. 4See Ontario College of Teachers v. Clements, 2016 ONOCT 11 at para 24.
5. 5Chong Yen, 2019 ONOCT 28.
6. 6Nolis at para. 70.
7. 7Nolis at para. 70.