DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v McMaster 2022 ONOCT 92

Date: 2022-09-29

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

Gregory Scott McMaster, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

GREGORY SCOTT MCMASTER (REGISTRATION #285301)

PANEL: Wanda Percival, OCT, Chair Brian Brophey Adam Dharsee, OCT

HEARD: September 27, 2022

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers Nicole Paroyan, for Gregory Scott McMaster 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 September 27, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Gregory Scott McMaster (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation.

3The 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

4The 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

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 3, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

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

(d) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);

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

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Gregory Scott McMaster is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Algoma District School Board (the “Board”) as a Grade 11/12 teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. On or about April 26, 2021, the Member was unprepared for the first class of his Quadmester Four Grade 11 Sports Marketing class by:

(a) failing to provide a class outline and/or rubric to the class;

(b) failing to provide subject material to the class; and

(c) ending the class within 20 minutes, despite the class being scheduled for 150 minutes.

4. Between on or about April 26, 2021 and on or about June 23, 2021, in relation to his Quadmester Four Grade 11 Sports Marketing class, the Member failed to engage the students in synchronous learning by:

(a) on multiple occasions, failing to check-in with individual students and/or groups during class;

(b) on multiple occasions, failing to direct students to rejoin the Microsoft Teams (“Teams”) meeting to consolidate learning; and

(c) on one or more occasions, ending the class prior to the scheduled end time.

5. On or about May 14, 2021, without advising the School administration, the Member excused the students in his Quadmester Four Grade 11 Sports Marketing class by writing the following post to the class on Edsby:

“I think we’re going to call it a mental health Friday. Get out and enjoy the sunshine and warm weather. Stay safe, see you Monday.”

This was done contrary to the Board’s directive that students must receive 120 minutes of synchronous learning per course per day.

6. On or about May 14, 2021, in relation to his Quadmester Four Grade 11 Sports Marketing class, the Member failed to facilitate and engage in synchronous learning with his students by:

(a) permitting some students to take a “mental health day” while other students continued to work on their assignment;

(b) deciding not to begin a new topic in the class;

(c) directly instructing students, via Edsby, not to participate in class and not to complete any learning activities; and

(d) depriving students of a “substantial amount” of learning time.

7. On or about May 21, 2021, at 8:53 a.m., without advising the School administration, the Member excused the students in his Quadmester Four Grade 11 Sports Marketing class by writing the following post (that also contained images of Minions and a tiki bar) to the class on Edsby:

“I’m working from camp today, and the wi-fi is a major concern for me. For that reason, we will not be meeting on Teams today, but rather working independently on the Shoe Branding assignment from yesterday. If you’d like to work with a partner, please reach out to someone in the class. You are also able to work alone. Messages in Edsby are the preferred method of communicating with me today, and I will do my best to respond to you in a timely manner. We will meet in Teams as scheduled on Tuesday at 12:00. Have a fantastic long weekend.”

This was done contrary to the Board’s directive that students must receive 120 minutes of synchronous learning per course per day.

8. On or about May 21, 2021, the Member failed to facilitate and engage in synchronous learning with the students in his Quadmester Four Grade 11 Sports Marketing class by:

(a) failing to hold a Teams call with students;

(b) implying to students via his posting that May 21, 2021 was a “vacation day”; and

(c) failing to notify the School administration that he was experiencing wi-fi connection issues.

9. The Member failed to remain on a Teams meeting for the full duration of his Quadmester Four Grade 11 Sports Marketing class, thereby depriving students of substantial learning time, on the following dates:

(a) May 13, 2021;

(b) May 17, 2021;

(c) May 20, 2021; and

(d) May 21, 2021.

10. On or about July 13, 2021, the Board issued a Letter of Expectations to the Member and suspended him for five days without pay. The Board’s discipline letter noted that the Member had been previously disciplined in 2018 and, while the two sets of incidents were not identical, some of the concerns previously raised were similar to those currently being reviewed, including providing limited instruction, guidance, and feedback to students. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the Board’s Letter of Expectations dated July 13, 2021.

11. While not an excuse for his conduct, the Member states that there were multiple stressors in his life at the time of the conduct described in paragraphs 3-9 above, including:

(a) the virtual learning/teaching environment resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic;

(b) parenting issues – during the time in question the Member states that he was responsible for supervising his two children (which were also engaged in virtual learning at home);

(c) technological issues/unclear instructions – the Member states that he experienced technological issues with virtual learning, had difficulty incorporating his in-person teaching methods into the virtual setting, and felt that he had limited guidance from the Board in regard to its expectations of teachers during the virtual learning period; and

(d) death of Member’s father – the Member’s father passed away on April 14, 2021. The Member took only three days of bereavement before returning to the classroom and states that he was under a great deal of emotional stress at the time.

Previous Decision of the Discipline Committee

12. The Member was previously found guilty of professional misconduct by the College’s Discipline Committee. On or about April 14, 2022, the Member was reprimanded, suspended for three months (effective April 29, 2022) and ordered to complete a course in classroom management and anger management, for engaging in a pattern of inappropriate conduct in the classroom, including engaging in intimidating behaviour with students, yelling at students, using inappropriate language in the classroom, and failing to provide appropriate instruction, assessment, guidance and feedback to students. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a copy of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee dated April 14, 2022.

13. The Member completed the required course in classroom management with Jessica Burnie on June 28th, 2022 and anger management with Shawna Thomas-Wilson on August 10th, 2022.

GUILTY PLEA

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

15. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts at paragraphs 3-9 above constitute conduct that 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(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

16. By this document, the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

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

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

(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

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

17. In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 27, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 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 13 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 at paragraphs 3 to 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. These Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of irresponsible behaviour in failing to fulfill his duties as a teacher committed to students’ learning.

9The Panel finds that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to meet the standards that govern members of the teaching profession. He did not prepare material for the first class of the Quadmester and similarly did not adequately commit to students’ learning in subsequent classes, when he did not begin new topics in class. He also failed to engage with the students when he did not direct students to join meetings and did not check in with students during class. In addition to cancelling class altogether or ending class early on multiple occasions, the Member also deprived students of learning opportunities when he instructed students to not participate in class and to not complete any learning activities. He neglected to show a commitment to students’ learning and failed to demonstrate professional practice in using the appropriate pedagogy, resources and technology to respond to his students’ needs. As a leader in the learning community, he ought to have promoted and participated in the creation of a collaborative learning community and facilitated students’ success, but the Member neglected his duties and failed to meet these professional standards.

10The Member breached subsection 1(11) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 in failing to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the Member. The students in the Member’s class are expected to be under the Member’s professional supervision for the duration of the class, yet the Member ended class early on numerous occasions, failed to remain on a Teams meeting for the full duration of his class, or cancelled class altogether. This left students unattended for the remainder of the class time. Not only were they deprived of learning opportunities in a full class, but they were left unsupervised, which the Panel believes would have been detrimental to students who required a supportive learning environment, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Member completely disregarded his supervision duties as a teacher.

11The Panel finds the Member 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). Namely, the Member breached his duty to teach diligently and faithfully the class assigned to him and did not encourage his students in the pursuit of learning. As mentioned above, the Member was not present in many of his classes, having left early or cancelled the class altogether. He did not engage with the students as required, he did not facilitate a learning environment, and he actively discouraged students from completing their learning activities. The Member did not fulfill his most basic duties as a teacher and by dismissing the importance of learning, he acted as a poor role model for students. His behaviour showed students that engaging and being committed to class and learning is not important and that class could be skipped altogether with little effort to learn, without any consequences or valid reasons. In doing so, the Member did not meet his professional duties.

12The Member’s conduct could also be regarded by the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member repeatedly deprived students of learning opportunities, including by ending class early, canceling class, and instructing students not to participate in class or complete learning activities. The Member also disregarded Board directives relating to synchronous learning. Members are expected to be dedicated to their students’ learning and development, but the Member failed in this respect.

13The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct as described above, was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By failing to prepare for class, teach his class and meaningfully engage with his students, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and violated the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers. The public expects that teachers will teach their students for the requisite amount of time and aid in their development and learning.

14The Panel recognizes that the Member’s misconduct occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, in unprecedented circumstances of virtual learning that required members to learn and adapt to the new format of teaching. However, the Panel also notes that the misconduct at issue occurred approximately a year after the first school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and thus, the Member ought to have familiarized himself with the technology and pedagogy to properly teach his students virtually. The Member was expected to uphold the standards of the profession, fulfill his duties as a teacher, and remain committed to his students, despite the online format of his classes.

F. PENALTY DECISION

15The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 27, 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 video conference, 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, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction on effective supervision of students (including in a virtual learning/teaching environment). The course shall be pre-approved by the Registrar and be 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, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee; and

(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; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course practitioner stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

16The 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.¹ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Gocking, 2019 ONOCT 52; and Ontario College of Teachers v. McColeman, 2019 ONOCT 109.²

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case include the fact that the Member set a poor example for students in how they should value their learning, and that the Member was previously disciplined by the Board for conduct that included similar mistakes in failing to provide instruction, guidance and feedback to students in 2018. Although the Member was previously disciplined by the Discipline Committee, the Panel does recognize that the Member completed the terms, conditions and limitations placed on his certificate after the misconduct admitted in this matter, and as such, he did not have an opportunity to learn from his remediation courses to prevent the misconduct here.

18In terms of mitigating factors, the Panel recognizes that the misconduct is on the lower end of the spectrum compared to other matters that come before the Discipline Committee, as well as the other personal stressors that the Member was experiencing at the time of the misconduct, including the death of his father. In addition, the Member admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

19The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct, despite warnings from the Board, warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to fulfill their essential duties, which include teaching their students and engaging them in their learning. The Member repeatedly failed to do so and deprived students of learning opportunities. This has serious consequences for their academic development and does not properly prepare them for their future education. 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 and demonstrate that the Member’s behaviour was unacceptable.

20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding the effective supervision of students, including in a virtual learning/teaching environment, will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions with respect to his classroom management and in any future interactions with students. This will serve to protect the public and promote transparency and accountability, as there will be a notation on the public register.

21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.
2. 2The College also presented the Panel with a redacted and confidential decision of the College’s Investigation Committee dated March 18, 2022, which involved similar underlying conduct. This matter was not referred to the Discipline Committee and the decision of the Investigation Committee is not binding on the Panel. The legal considerations of the Investigation Committee are different than those of the Discipline Committee, and the Panel therefore placed very little weight on the Investigation Committee decision.