DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
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 Marie-Gabrielle Balan, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
MARIE-GABRIELLE BALAN (REGISTRATION #482970)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Élaine Legault Alain Martel, OCT
HEARD: February 16, 2023
Émilie Bruneau, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for Marie-Gabrielle Balan Renée Kopp, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
1The penalty portion of this proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on February 16, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2On November 9, 2022, the Panel found that Marie-Gabrielle Balan (the “Member”) engaged in professional misconduct during the 2016-2017 school year, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing No. 4776, dated October 1, 2018. The Panel found, among other things, that the Member failed to provide adequate instruction to one or more students with an individualized education plan (an “IEP”) or to make the accommodations outlined in the IEPs. She also failed to adequately supervise students, made inappropriate remarks to students, and had unacceptable exchanges with students and staff members. Further, the Member was insubordinate and failed to provide adequate instruction to students, including failing to assess their work or monitor their progress.
3As a result of this behaviour, the Panel found that the Member had breached sections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. However, the Panel did not find the Member to be incompetent, as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996. The Panel’s Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision in this matter, dated November 9, 2022, is entitled Ontario College of Teachers v. Balan, 2022 ONOCT 117.
4The Panel reconvened on February 16, 2023, to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member did not attend this stage of the hearing and was not represented by counsel.
5College Counsel submitted documentary evidence in the form of affidavits to outline the communications exchanged between the College and the Member regarding the penalty hearing. In the Affidavit of Annie Lacroix, sworn on February 9, 2023 (Exhibit 7), the College confirms that it sent the Panel’s Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision dated November 9, 2022, to the Member and informed her that a date for the penalty portion of the hearing would be set. In the Supplementary Affidavit of Annie Lacroix, sworn on February 13, 2023 (Exhibit 8), the College shows that a copy of the documents for the penalty hearing were provided to the Member. The College also submitted the Member’s email response confirming that she would not attend the hearing on February 16, 2023.
6Based on these affidavits, the Panel was satisfied that the Member was properly made aware of the time and date of the penalty hearing and the penalty being sought by the College. As the Member stated in her response that she would not attend the hearing on February 16, 2023, the Panel conducted the penalty portion of the hearing in her absence.
A. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
7The College submitted that the Panel should order a penalty that includes the following:
a reprimand;
a four to twelve-month suspension; and
terms, conditions or limitations that would prevent the Member from returning to the teaching profession until she successfully completes a course on classroom management and appropriate communication with students in the classroom.
8College Counsel cited the following five decisions in support of her submissions on penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v. Culp, 2021 ONOCT 81; Ontario College of Teachers v. Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79; Ontario College of Teachers v. Labbé, 2018 ONOCT 39; Ontario College of Teachers v. Thompson, 2020 ONOCT 133; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Charette, 2018 ONOCT 32. According to College Counsel, some of the facts in these cases are similar to those in the present matter, meaning the Panel can use them as a reference in determining the appropriate range of penalties and in rendering its decision on an appropriate penalty.
B. PENALTY DECISION
9On February 16, 2023, the Panel made the following order as to penalty:
The Member is directed to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered in writing, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of eight months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
a) Prior to accepting a position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete, at her own expense, a three-pronged course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar. This course will focus on classroom management, appropriate communications with students in the classroom, and issues regarding boundary violation during interactions with colleagues and supervisors. To successfully complete the course requirement, the Member must meet the following conditions:
(i) The Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of both the Decision and Reasons on finding and the Decision and Reasons on penalty of the Discipline Committee.
(ii) Upon review of the document noted at subparagraph (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 shall also specify the length and the objectives of the course to be undertaken by the Member.
b) Within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in paragraph (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report 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.
C. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
10The Panel carefully considered College Counsel’s submissions on penalty and the cases provided. The Panel believes that the order set out above satisfies the penalty objectives of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, transparency, and protection of the public interest and is proportionate to the Member’s misconduct. The penalty proposed by the College also fell within a range of acceptable outcomes. While the decisions submitted by College Counsel do not include a suspension beyond six months, the Panel believes that the Member’s conduct in this case was more serious; it comprised of a combination of almost all of the heads of misconduct identified in the decisions provided by College Counsel, and as such, merits a harsher penalty.
11The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. In the present case, the aggravating factors are the many issues and incidents that constituted the Member’s misconduct, which took place over a number of months during the 2016-2017 school year and involved several young [XXX] school students. The Member’s refusal to cooperate in the disciplinary process is also an aggravating factor. As for mitigating factors, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past and her misconduct occurred over a single year rather than several years.
12The Panel believes that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate behaviour, which included breaching several standards of the teaching profession, warrants a reprimand. The Panel is particularly concerned by the fact that the Member failed to implement a student's IEP, made inappropriate remarks to students, was insubordinate towards her principal by refusing to follow her supervisor's recommendations, and engaged in inappropriate exchanges with colleagues and her principal. The Member’s conduct undermined the public’s trust in the teaching profession and damaged her relationships with her co-workers and supervisor. Teachers are expected to act as role models for students, which the Member failed to do. Members of the teaching profession are also expected to promote safe and supportive learning environments and to model appropriate and respectful behaviour. They must behave in a professional manner when interacting with colleagues and supervisors. The Member’s conduct fell short of meeting these expectations. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and thus will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register is important as it will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
13Given that the Member repeatedly engaged in various types of misconduct over the course of the 2016-2017 school year, the Panel finds that an eight-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. In determining this penalty, the Panel considered the cases provided by College Counsel as well as her submission proposing a maximum suspension of 12 months. Although the decisions presented by College Counsel all included suspensions of six months or less, the Panel found that the Member’s conduct in this case comprised of a combination of the heads of misconduct cited in the cases provided, and therefore that her more serious misconduct merited a longer suspension.
14The Panel focused particularly on Ontario College of Teachers v. Labbé, 2018 ONOCT 39, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Charette, 2018 ONOCT 32, which, although less serious, were the most similar to the present case. In both decisions, a six-month suspension was ordered. The facts in these two cases are analogous to those of the present matter in that the members concerned made inappropriate remarks to students, were insubordinate and refused to cooperate with staff members. However, the Panel believes there to be more aggravating factors in the present matter, including the range of misconduct the Member committed. As such, the Panel finds that an eight-month suspension is reasonable, given that the Member’s conduct comprised of a combination of the heads of professional misconduct identified in the decisions provided by College Counsel. The College had put forth that a suspension of up to 12 months would be reasonable. Although the College did not provide previous decisions in support of their request for a suspension of up to 12 months, the Panel felt that an appropriate suspension, given all of the Member’s misconduct, would be more severe than those ordered in cases provided by College Counsel.
15The eight-month suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member, making it clear to her that the College does not tolerate this type of conduct. Recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession. In addition, the suspension satisfies the penalty objective of protecting the public interest.
16The Panel finds that a three-pronged course on classroom management, appropriate communication with students in the classroom, and issues regarding boundary violation during interactions with colleagues and supervisors will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member and help her to develop the necessary tools for carrying out her role as a teacher, should she return to a teaching position. The coursework will remind the Member of her professional obligations and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students, colleagues, and supervisors.
17While College Counsel proposed a course on classroom management and appropriate communication with students in the classroom as a rehabilitative component of the penalty, the Panel felt it would be important for this course to also address issues regarding boundary violation during interactions with colleagues and supervisors, given the Member’s misconduct in relation to her principal and colleagues. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel considered Ontario College of Teachers v. Charette, 2018 ONOCT 32, in which the member was ordered to complete a course addressing boundary violation issues with respect to interactions with colleagues and supervisors. The facts of that decision are similar to those in the present case in that the member in question had also used an inappropriate tone in his dealings with co-workers and supervisors, challenged the authority of his principal and refused to cooperate with them.
18Seeing as this conduct is similar to Member’s conduct in the present case, the Panel felt it appropriate to order that the Member complete a course that addresses this type of behaviour before she returns to a teaching position, in order to prevent her from engaging in similar conduct in the future. No submissions or evidence were put forth during the present hearing to suggest that the Member had previously completed a course addressing boundary violation issues with respect to interactions with colleagues and supervisors. Therefore, the Panel feels it is necessary for the course to also address this type of misconduct. The Panel finds that a three-pronged course would therefore be best suited to address all the types of professional misconduct committed by the Member in the present matter.
19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: April 3, 2023
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Alain Martel, OCT Member, Discipline Panel