DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Saari 2022 ONOCT 99

Date: 2022-10-19

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Ivan Marc Saari, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

IVAN MARC SAARI (REGISTRATION #196219)

PANEL: Emma Rhodes, Chair Stefano Fornazzari, OCT Damienne Lebrun-Reid

HEARD: October 6, 2022

Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers Michelle Sun, for Ivan Marc Saari Ahmad Mozaffari, 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”) onOctober 6, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Ivan Marc Saari (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 February 5, 2021 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Ivan Marc Saari 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);¹

(b) he 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);²

(c) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264, section 265 and/or Part XIII 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. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Ivan Marc Saari is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). 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. During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member was employed by the Renfrew County District School Board (the “Board”) as a Principal at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.

3. At all material times, the Student was a Grade [XXX] male student of the School. At all material times, Person A was a female teacher at the School, and was one of the Student’s teachers.

Comments Made By The Student in May 2018

4. The School employed two school support counsellors whose roles were to provide emotional and behavioural support to students in small groups or one-on-one. The counsellors reported directly to the Member who was the Principal of the School.

5. On or about May 1, 2018, one of the two support counsellors (the “Counsellor”) had a session with the Student. The Student had a diagnosis of [XXX], an Individual Education Plan, a Behaviour Intervention Plan and a Safety Plan. During the session, the Student spoke about the father of his long distance girlfriend who had told his girlfriend that they could not be together anymore. The Student told the Counsellor that he “wished a shotgun would go off when he was hunting,” or words to that effect.

6. During the same session, the Student spoke about Person A. The Student told the Counsellor that he hated Person A and “wished someone would stab her to death,” or words to that effect. The Counsellor asked, “Do you want to hurt her?” and the Student replied, “I can’t tell you that. Are you videotaping me?” or words to that effect.

7. The Counsellor was alarmed by the Student’s comments because she knew that during her previous confidential sessions with the Student, he had spoken about weapons and had told her he had hunting rifles, a hunting licence, a collection of knives and had talked about killing animals. This was also the first time the Counsellor had heard the Student make threats or speak about wanting people dead.

8. Because of the Student’s comments, as well as his previous disclosures, the Counsellor went to see the Member immediately after her session with the Student on May 1, 2018. She told the Member about what the Student said to her regarding Person A. On the same day, at the Member’s suggestion, the Counsellor called the Children’s Aid Society and the police in the presence of the Member to discuss the Student’s statements.

9. The Counsellor asked the Member whether they should let Person A know about the Student’s comments and threats towards her. The Member responded that she should keep it to herself for the time being until they figured out next steps with the Student. The Member provided the Counsellor with the Violence Threat Risk Assessment (“VTRA”) document with which she was unfamiliar and asked her to review the salient components around level of risk and what constituted a threat.

10. Between May 2 and 7, 2018, the Counsellor followed up with the Member about initiating a VTRA process for the Student and asked the Member whether they should let Person A know about the Student’s comments towards her. The Member responded that he was determining if a “threat” had been issued against Person A, and that Person A would be informed should the threshold of “threat” be met under the VTRA framework. Based on the Member’s discussion with the Counsellor, and his knowledge of the Student’s baseline behaviour, the Member decided that there was no need to initiate the VTRA process.

11. Between May 1 and May 17, the Counsellor spoke to the Member on one or more occasions because she was worried about the comments made by the Student and felt that Person A should know about the Student’s comments and threats towards her because Person A and the Student were often in conflict.

12. On May 17, 2018, the Counsellor attended a telehealth meeting with the mental health lead of the School who had experience with the VTRA process. During the meeting, the Counsellor told the mental health lead about the situation with the Student. The mental health lead thought that a VTRA process should be initiated and offered to speak to the Member. The mental health lead subsequently spoke to the Member about the need to initiate a VTRA process.

13. On Friday, May 18, 2018, the Member met with both support counsellors and requested that they fill out the assessment form together to determine whether a “threat” existed to trigger the VTRA process. Both support counsellors were provided another/digital copy of the VTRA form and both committed to filling it out prior to a meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 when both were scheduled to be in the School. Both support counsellors prepared the forms independently on the weekend.

14. On May 22, 2018, the two support counsellors met with the Member to discuss next steps for the Student and presented the completed VTRA paperwork. Based on the Member’s review of the forms and the discussion, he indicated that the Student’s baseline behaviour had not changed. He, therefore, concluded that there was no specific or emergent “threat” and no formal VTRA assessment was required.

15. Ultimately, Person A was not informed by the Member about the comments and threats made by the Student.

16. Although the Member was permitted to suspend the Student pursuant to the Safe Schools Act, 2000, section 306(1)(1)³, he declined to do so as he believed there were mitigating factors described in O. Reg. 472/07: Behaviour, Discipline and Safety of Pupils, including the Student’s history and his IEP.

17. As the Member was moving to a new role, he transferred his file about the Student to the new School Principal.

Disclosure of Threats/Comments to Person A in June 2019

18. The new Principal of the School received information from the police and/or from another school regarding possible threats made by the Student. The Student had made statements regarding violent behaviour being planned against the School by the Student in May and/or June 2019. The Student was in Grade [XXX] at the time. The Principal decided to initiate a VTRA in response to the information received and the police were notified. As part of the VTRA process, the Principal asked teachers at the School what information they had about the Student.

19. In the course of the VTRA, the police informed the Principal that the Student had made serious threats towards Person A in or about May 2018.

20. As a result of the threats uttered by the Student in May or early June 2019, a police investigation was initiated which included an investigation of the threat uttered in May 2018 towards Person A. During the police investigation in June 2019, the police spoke to Person A and told her about the May 2018 threat by the Student as it related to her safety and well-being. This was the first time Person A learned about the Student’s threat toward her.

21. Person A was deeply affected to learn about this threat to her safety. She felt betrayed by the Member. Person A and her family experienced a constant state of worry and fear after learning about the student’s threat, coupled with anger toward the Member for his lack of support and inaction in protecting her.

Board Investigation

22. Person A made a complaint to the Board about the Member because he had not advised her of any threat in a timely manner and had, therefore, put her well-being and safety at risk.

23. The Board conducted an investigation and found that the Member did not adhere to his responsibilities under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Specifically, the Member did not inform Person A of the threat against her, contrary to sections 27(2)(a)⁴ and 32.0.5(3)(a) and (b)⁵.

24. The Member was given a two-day unpaid suspension by the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the discipline letter dated September 24, 2019.

Current Status

25. The Member retired from the Board effective March 31, 2021.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

26. By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

27. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18-unprofessional only), and 1(19).

28. 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading no contest 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 Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) 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;

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

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

29. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

30. In light of the Uncontested Facts and the circumstances, 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 subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought as it is duplicative of the subsection 1(14) allegation. The Panel granted the request.

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 6, 2022, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 25 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to inform Person A about threats which the Student had made against her in 2018.

9The Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the professional standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities” and the ethical standard of “Trust”. Members are required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. Members’ professional relationships with colleagues are based on trust. The Student made threats towards Person A’s safety and well-being. Not only did the Member decline to suspend the Student as he believed there were mitigating factors, but he also failed to inform Person A of the threats. Person A was deeply affected when she learned about the threats to her safety during a police investigation in 2019. She was in a constant state of worry and fear and was angry at the Member for his lack of support and inaction in protecting her. Conduct that makes a co-worker feel scared and worried is incompatible with the requirement that members must foster safe and supportive learning communities. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s conduct was in breach of the standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities.” Furthermore, it was reasonable for Person A to trust that the Member, as principal and leader of the School, would prioritise her safety and inform her of threats made against her. The Member’s inaction made Person A feel betrayed. The Member, therefore, also breached the trust of Person A. As such, the Member’s conduct fell below the professional and ethical standards.

10The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 265 of the Education Act. Subsection 265(1)(a) of the Education Act provides that it is the duty of a principal of a school, in addition to the principal’s duties as a teacher, to maintain proper order and discipline in the school. Being aware that the Student, who had a diagnosis of [XXX], had made threats towards Person A, the Member declined to suspend him. Person A was the Student’s teacher and would have worked with the Student in class or on the School ground. The Member’s inaction exposed Person A to further risk of harm. The Member therefore failed to maintain proper order and discipline in the School.

11Moreover, subsection 265(1)(d) of the Education Act requires members of the teaching profession to assist in developing cooperation and coordination of effort among members of the staff of the school. The Member’s conduct was contrary to these principles. On one or more occasion, the Counsellor spoke to the Member because she was worried about the comments made by the Student. The Counsellor felt that Person A should know about the threats as Person A and the Student were often in conflict. Through his inaction, not only did the Member fail to collaborate with the Counsellor and Person A, but he also deprived Person A of the choice to protect herself. Accordingly, the Member failed to fulfil his duties as a principal.

12The Member committed acts which would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Unprofessional conduct includes conduct that demonstrates a disregard for a member’s professional obligations and a failure to demonstrate sound professional judgment. Principals are expected to prioritise the safety of all members of the school community, including staff. By failing to inform Person A of the threats made against her, declining to suspend the Student when he was permitted to do so, and concluding that there was no specific emergent “threat” and no formal VTRA assessment required, the Member demonstrated a disregard for his professional duties and a lack of professional judgment. The Panel accepts the parties’ joint submission that the subsection 1(18) finding should be limited to unprofessional conduct only. Although the Member’s conduct related to a safety issue, it did not rise to the level of disgraceful or dishonourable conduct, as there was no element of moral failing or deceit in this case.

13Similarly, the Panel finds that Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By failing to prioritise the safety of his school community, and specifically, Person A’s safety, the Member breached the trust placed in him as a principal and leader of his school. Through his poor professional judgment and his inactivity in the face of a serious threat, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession. The public must be able to trust that school administrators are making sound decisions to ensure that schools are safe spaces at all times.

F. PENALTY Decision

14The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 6, 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 is to 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 (1) month commencing on the 15^th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.

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

(a) prior to commencing or resuming a teaching position for which a Certification of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding relationships with colleagues and responsibilities of an education leader subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest 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.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

15The 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.⁶ 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. Curtis, 2015 ONOCT 15, Ontario College of Teachers v. Wabo, 2021 ONOCT 121, Ontario College of Teachers v. McColeman, 2019 ONOCT 109, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Black, 2020 ONOCT 152.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (1) by failing to inform Person A of the threats made against her, the Member put Person A’s safety at risk; and (2) the Member’s lack of support and inaction in protecting Person A from the Student’s threat deeply affected her. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. Member’s Counsel also submitted that the Member was remorseful. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s improper handling of the Student’s serious threat against Person A warrants a reprimand. As a member of the teaching profession and an education leader, the Member ought to have demonstrated sounder professional judgment when dealing with the safety issue at issue in this case. The Member failed to inform Person A of the threat to her safety and well-being and his inaction put her at further risk of harm. 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.

18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, 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 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 engaged in is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on October 21, 2022, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding relationships with colleagues and responsibilities of an education leader will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a member of the teaching profession and will help him to make better decisions in his professional practice, should he return to the teaching profession. The coursework should provide the Member with a clear understanding of how to act appropriately when staff safety is at issue.

20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2As of January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws has been renumbered as section 26.
3. 3It is mandatory that a pupil be suspended from his or her school and from engaging in all school-related activities if the pupil commits any of the following infractions while he or she is at school or is engaging in a school related activity: 1. Uttering a threat to inflict serious bodily harm on another person.
4. 4Without limiting the duty imposed by subsection (1), a supervisor shall: advise a worker of the existence of any potential or actual danger to the health or safety of the worker of which the supervisor is aware.
5. 5An employer’s duty to provide information to a worker under clause 25(2)(a) and a supervisor’s duty to advise a worker under clause 27(2)(a) include the duty to provide information, including personal information, related to a risk of workplace violence from a person with a history of violent behaviour if, (a) the worker can be expected to encounter that person in the course of his or her work; and (b) the risk of workplace violence is likely to expose the worker to physical injury.
6. 6See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.