DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Biondich 2023 ONOCT 20 Date: 2023-03-02
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 Johnny Biondich, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS – and – JOHNNY BIONDICH (REGISTRATION #501810)
PANEL: Adam Dharsee, OCT, Chair Kirby Chown, OCT Rachelle Coleman
HEARD: February 13, 2023
COUNSEL: Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Kylie Sier, for Johnny Biondich Erica Richler, 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 February 13, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Johnny Biondich (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 September 15, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Johnny Biondich is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(d) 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);
(e) 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);
(f) 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:
Johnny Biondich 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Brampton, Ontario.
2018
At all material times during the 2018-2019 school year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class at the School.
Early in September 2018, the Member asked Student 1 to stand on a desk in the classroom to help fix a projector attached to the ceiling after Student 1 offered to assist in trouble shooting with a technical issue. When Student 1 said that he thought it wasn’t safe for him to stand on the desk, the Member said, “You came from [XXX], and now you’re worried about falling off a desk?”, or words to that effect. By way of context, Student 1 immigrated from [XXX] and had previously told the Member how dangerous [XXX] could be.
Student 1 felt uncomfortable with both the Member’s request and comment. The Member intended his comment to be humorous, not realizing it could offend Student 1, and upon reflection realized he should not have asked a student to stand on a desk.
On September 17, 2018, during a class discussion on permanence, the Member declared that all physical objects and structures were subject to decay, including the pyramids in Egypt. Student 1 disagreed with the Member’s statement regarding the pyramids, and voiced his opinion in class. The Member responded to Student 1 in front of the class by saying, “Really, smart ass” or words to that effect.
Shortly thereafter, the Member asked to speak with Student 1 in the hallway, where he told Student 1, “you don’t have to like me, and I don’t have to like you. You just need the credit”. The Member then reprimanded Student 1 for being rude and embarrassing him in class by speaking over him. Student 1 apologized to the Member, and said he didn’t realize that he had been rude.
A day or two later, Student 1 came to class early to talk to the Member about his comments regarding the pyramids in class because he did not want the Member to think he was rude. Both the Member and Student 1 became frustrated during their conversation, and the Member said to Student 1 words to the effect of, “Listen Bro, I don’t have to deal with your stupidity and all this. You are rude, distrustful”. When Student 1 said, “Sir, please don’t call me stupid”, the Member responded in a raised voice, “I didn’t. I said I don’t have to deal with your stupidity”.
After these exchanges, the Member called Student 1’s parent to report that Student 1 had been rude and disrespectful to him, and that if Student 1 didn’t change his behaviour, he did not want Student 1 in his class.
As a result of the Member’s conduct towards him, Student 1 felt fear, anxiety and stress about attending the Member’s class. On September 25, 2018, Student 1’s parent spoke with the Principal and requested that Student 1 be transferred out of the Member’s class.
During a meeting with his Principal, Vice Principal, and union representative on September 25, 2018, the Member acknowledged that he made some mistakes in addressing Student 1. The Principal cautioned the Member to refrain from using offensive language in the classroom and from making derogatory comments racializing students in class.
September and October 2021
During the months of September and October 2021, COVID safety measures were in place at the School. During his first period Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, the Member did not always check students’ COVID-19 screening attestations at the classroom door in the mornings as directed by the administration.
In early September 2021, the Member taught a lesson on [XXX]. He intended to facilitate a class discussion on scepticism and told his students that the COVID-19 vaccine could not be trusted and/or would not kill the virus. The Member chose this topic to debate in class because it was a contemporary social issue that he believed would engage the students, even though he had been asked by the School not to discuss this topic. His comments made a number of students feel uncomfortable.
During the months of September and October 2021, the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] students were split between online and in-person attendance. The Member found that students were disengaged and having trouble concentrating. In an effort to boost engagement, the Member employed different tactics. While some were successful, others fell flat such as when, during class discussions, the Member yelled loudly and slammed his fist on the table to emphasize his points, or when he told students that they would fail his course, even though he would later tell them that he was only joking. Students found his behaviour intimidating and scary, and it made them feel anxious and uncomfortable about expressing their views if they disagreed with the Member’s opinions during class discussions.
The Member also made provocative statements during class discussions in September and October 2021 that were insensitive, racist, sexist and homophobic. The Member would say that his statements were intended to engage students in [XXX] and debate, and to generate discussion. However, his debate topics upset some students and made them feel uncomfortable in his class, including when he:
(a) said that women were obligated to have children, and that a woman who decided not to have children was selfish and egotistical;
(b) said that homosexual relationships were a sin;
(c) referred to the current generation of students as a “bunch of snowflakes”’
(d) during a discussion about western and eastern [XXX], said that if you ask a child from “India… actually Brampton” where God is, the child would not point up, but would point to their heart, a comment interpreted by at least one student as stereotyping residents in Brampton based on their skin colour.
Interactions with Students 2, 3, 4, 5
At all material times during September and October 2021, the Member made statements and engaged in conduct towards Students 2, 3, 4, and 5, who were [XXX] female students in his Grade [XXX] [XXX] class, that were perceived as derogatory and racist, and made students feel uncomfortable.
During a discussion in class about human nature, Student 2 and a few other students shared their views with the class. At one point, the Member began shouting at Student 2, and slamming his palm on the table loudly to establish his point. Student 2 was terrified at the Member’s response and did not understand why he had singled her out from the other students who voiced similar views. When another student asked the Member why he was yelling at Student 2, the Member said he was only joking and was being theatrical.
During a discussion in class about cause and effect, the Member used the concept of Karma to spur class discussion. The Member was familiar with the concept of Karma as he studies Eastern [XXX]. When Student 2, who is [XXX], attempted to explain her understanding of the concept of Karma, and other students indicated they wanted to hear from Student 2, the Member:
(a) told students that he had a better understanding of Karma than they did, because he had studied Eastern [XXX];
(b) pointed at Student 2 as he repeatedly slammed his hand on the desk and yelled at her, “So I have to be [XXX] to understand Karma? Yes or No? Yes or No?”.
Student 2 was visibly upset and shaken by the Member’s aggressive conduct. Another student, equally shocked, intervened to ask the Member to stop yelling because the conversation had become uncomfortable and out of hand. The Member agreed; he returned to his desk and everyone remained seated and silent for the remainder of the class. The Member had been surprised and offended that students wanted to hear about Karma from Student 2 and not from him, which he interpreted as suggesting that only members of certain religious groups could comment on concepts within their religion. Upon reflection he regretted that he had become emotionally involved in the situation.
During class one day, Student 3 joked with the Member that if he gave her $100, then she would tell him how to pronounce her name correctly. Student 3 made this comment because the Member repeatedly mispronounced her name in class. The Member said he was doing his best to pronounce her name according to the English language and asked her whether it should be read backwards. The Member made this comment because he was doing such a bad job of reading it forwards and he intended his response to be a joke, but his comments offended Student 3, who perceived them as racist and made her feel uncomfortable.
Around this time, during class the Member asked students for an example of a quotation. No one raised their hand. In order to encourage participation, the Member jokingly offered $100 to the student who could provide him with an example. Student 3 responded with a quotation, and the class reminded the Member that he owed her $100. A few days later, the Member gave 100 [XXX] to Student 3 in class, which made her feel uncomfortable. The Member thought he was being funny, but Student 3 felt singled out because of her ethnicity and perceived the Member’s conduct was racially motivated.
On October 5, 2021, the Member asked Student 4 to step outside the classroom to discuss a late assignment. In the hallway, Student 4 bowed as she apologized to the Member for not handing it in on time. The Member then clasped his hands together and bowed in a reciprocal gesture. Student 4 said, “Please don’t do that, it might be racist”. The Member was upset by Student 4’s comment, and responded by stomping around and yelling at her to “take it back” and apologize to him. Although the classroom door was closed, students heard the Member yelling at Student 4. Student 4, who is [XXX], interpreted the Member’s conduct as racially motivated, and it made her feel uncomfortable.
During a class discussion, the Member asked Student 5, who is [XXX], if she would marry the man her parents chose for her. When she responded, “what if I don’t want to marry a guy?”, the Member said words to the effect of, “what else is there? The animal kingdom?”. Some students, including Student 5, were offended by the Member’s questions, which they perceived were sexist and racist.
Board Investigation
As a result of receiving complaints from students who felt uncomfortable in the Member’s class, the Board initiated an investigation.
By letter dated November 23, 2021, the Board disciplined the Member by suspending him for five days without pay, transferring him to another school, and requiring him to complete two professional development courses. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s November 23, 2021 discipline letter to the Member.
The Member continues to teach for the Board, where he has been teaching since September 2006.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
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”).
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(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), 1(19).
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 counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
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.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel supported by Member’s Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 13, 2023, 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
7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 26 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 heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that, on multiple occasions the Member engaged in inappropriate behaviour in class, including by making racist comments and being verbally aggressive towards students.
8The Panel finds that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member made several derogatory, racist, and sexist comments towards students. For instance, the Member called Student 1 a smart ass, stupid, rude, and distrustful. Similarly, when Student 1 was worried about being asked to stand on a desk in class, the Member singled him out based on his [XXX] nationality and made the following dismissive and offensive comment: “You came from [XXX], and now you are worried about falling off a desk?”. Additionally, the Member repeatedly mispronounced Student 3’s name and asked her whether it should be read backwards, which Student 3 perceived as racist. Moreover, the Member asked Student 5, who is [XXX], if she would marry the man her parents chose for her. When Student 5 responded “what if I don’t want to marry a guy?”, the Member said “what else is there? The animal kingdom?”, which students perceived as sexist and racist. Teachers must always be respectful and culturally sensitive in their interactions with students. Making derogatory, racist and sexist comments towards students, even when intended as a joke, is offensive. Racist comments suggest that racialized or minority groups are culturally inferior and unworthy. Such conduct by the Member is verbally abusive.
9Furthermore, on multiple occasions, the Member raised his voice, shouted, and yelled at students. For instance, the Member pointed at Student 2 as he repeatedly slammed his hand on the desk and yelled at her, “So I have to be [XXX] to understand Karma? Yes or No? Yes or No?” Moreover, being upset by Student 4’s suggestion that it was racist for the Member to bow at her, the Member responded by stomping around and yelling at her to “take it back” and apologize to him. Teachers must always display appropriate emotions in their interactions with students. Becoming emotionally involved and using verbal aggression towards students equally constitutes verbal abuse by the Member.
10The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In addition to the Member’s offensive and aggressive conduct described above, the Member facilitated a class discussion on scepticism by telling students that the COVID-19 vaccine could not be trusted and/or would not kill the virus even though he had been asked by the School not to discuss this topic. Moreover, the Member made provocative statements during class discussions which were insensitive, racist, sexist, and homophobic. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that students felt singled out, scared, anxious, intimidated, upset, uncomfortable as well as offended by the Member’s conduct. For instance, Student 2 was terrified by the Member’s aggressive conduct (i.e., he singled her out, shouted at her and slammed his palms loudly on the table) after she expressed views similar to other students during a class discussion about human nature. Given the adverse psychological or emotional impact which the Member’s conduct had on students, the Panel finds that the Member breached this subsection.
11The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by contravening the provisions of the College By-Laws, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the standards of practice of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning”, “Professional Practice” and “Leadership in Learning Communities” as well as the ethical standard of “Respect”. Members must treat students equitably, with respect and be sensitive to the factors that influence individual student learning. They must also use appropriate pedagogy and resources, among other things, in planning for and responding to the needs of individual students and learning communities. Furthermore, members are required to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. Members must honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development as well as model respect for spiritual and cultural values. The Member’s conduct was in stark contradiction to these principles.
12By repeatedly engaging in racist and sexist conduct in class, the Member demonstrated a lack of tolerance and respect for cultural diversity and women. By doing so, the Member also failed to treat students, particularly Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4 and Student 5, equitably. Furthermore, by using aggressive tactics such as slamming his fist on the table to boost student engagement during class discussions, not only did the Member use inappropriate pedagogy but he also created a fearful and intimidating classroom atmosphere. Additionally, the Member did not always check students’ COVID-19 screening attestations while COVID safety measures were in place at the School. Such conduct is incompatible with the expectation that teachers create a safe and supportive environment for students. The Member’s conduct therefore fell below the standards of the teaching profession.
13The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(b) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. The Member’s derogatory, racist and aggressive behaviour towards students in front of the class would reasonably have discouraged students from learning. Indeed, the Panel has received evidence that Student 1 was scared and stressed about attending the Member’s class. Student 1’s parent requested that Student 1 be transferred out of the Member’s class. Other students felt anxious and uncomfortable about expressing their views if they disagreed with the Member’s opinions during class discussions.
14Section 264(1)(c) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and […] the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty […] and all other virtues.” This provision is typically understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models. Their conduct must be reflective of the acceptance and inclusiveness expected in Ontario’s schools. By repeatedly engaging in racist conduct in class, the Member taught students that such behaviour was acceptable. Furthermore, instead of teaching students how to exercise restraint in the face of conflict and use non-aggressive communication skills, the Member often became emotionally involved, yelled, and slammed his palm or fist on the table to establish his point in class. The Member therefore acted as a poor role model and failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.
15The Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members must be sensitive and respectful of the diverse cultures that form part of their school communities. They must also demonstrate professionalism and self-control when interacting with students. The Member did the opposite by repeatedly engaging in racist, discriminatory, and aggressive conduct toward students. Such conduct demonstrates significant moral failing and a concerning lack of professional judgment by the Member. There is no place for racism, discrimination, and insensitivity in a learning environment.
16The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of racist and aggressive conduct, as described above, is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. By engaging in such conduct, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession as a whole and breached the trust that the public places in the profession.
F. PENALTY Decision
17The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 13, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two (2) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1st and August 1st, the suspension will commence on September 1st;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) within 90 days 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 communication and cultural sensitivity, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall 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 shall 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
18The 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. Chauvin, 2020 ONOCT 208, Ontario College of Teachers v. Will, 2021 ONOCT 1, and Ontario College of Teachers v. McNicoll, 2022 ONOCT 30.
19The Panel considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. There are several aggravating factors. Firstly, the Member’s conduct was not a momentary lapse of judgment. The Member repeatedly engaged in racist and insensitive conduct towards students. Secondly, the Member’s conduct was mainly directed at Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4, and Student 5, who were racialized students. Thirdly, the Member engaged in similar offensive conduct in 2021 despite having been cautioned by the principal in 2018. Finally, the Member’s conduct made several students feel upset, anxious, scared and uncomfortable. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and saving witnesses from having to testify. The Member has also not been the subject of College discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
20The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated racist and offensive conduct, despite prior warnings from his principal, warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to be culturally sensitive and respectful in their interactions with students. The Member did the opposite. Members are also expected to create a safe learning environment for all students. By repeatedly engaging in aggressive behaviour towards students, the Member created a fearful and toxic environment for them. 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.
21Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a two-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension began on February 28, 2023, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
22The Panel notes that the Member has already completed two professional development courses ordered by his Board. The Panel hopes that the course of instruction regarding classroom communication and cultural sensitivity will further assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. The coursework should provide the Member with appropriate and non-aggressive classroom communication skills, strategies to unlearn racist and discriminatory practices, and a clear understanding of how to be more culturally sensitive in his professional practice. The Panel strongly recommends that the Member prioritise completion of the coursework before returning to the classroom.
23The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: March 2, 2023
Adam Dharsee, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Kirby Chown, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Rachelle Coleman Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.