Ontario College of Teachers v. Loth, 2023 ONOCT 3

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Loth 2023 ONOCT 03

Date: 2023-01-05

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

Thomas Steven Loth, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

THOMAS STEVEN LOTH (REGISTRATION #519675)

PANEL: Rachelle Coleman, Chair Damienne Lebrun-Reid Terrence Singh, OCT

HEARD: December 19, 2022

Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers Christopher Reid, for Thomas Steven Loth 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 December 19, 2022, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Thomas Steven Loth (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation. The Member attended immediately after the hearing for the delivery of his reprimand as agreed to by the parties. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated March 22, 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 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);

(b) he committed an act or 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);

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

(d) he practised the profession while in a conflict of interest, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(26).

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. At all material times, Thomas Steven Loth was 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 Halton District School Board (the “Board”) as a transportation technology teacher at Craig Kielburger Secondary School (the “School”). In this capacity, he had control and access over an auto body shop at the School.

3. In the academic years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, the Member failed to adequately teach students in his transportation technology classes. In particular, the Member:

(a) relied almost exclusively on video lessons to teach his class and rarely taught lessons himself. While he sometimes provided hands-on instruction, students were primarily taught through video lessons;

(b) failed to answer students’ questions about course curriculum and instead directed students to re-watch the video lesson or ask their question to another student;

(c) did not teach most students how to use the paint booth or how to paint a vehicle; and

(d) failed to ensure that students learned the required course curriculum.

4. In the academic years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, the Member used School facilities to perform painting work on cars for an external automotive service business (the “Business”). In exchange for performing this work, the Member received financial benefit from the Business in the form of use of the Business’s shop, automotive parts at cost, free labour, and free meals. At times, students were not able to use the paint booth because the Member was using the paint booth to perform work for the Business.

5. In addition to receiving financial benefits from the Business for work performed at the School, the Member also occasionally worked at the Business. The Member failed to report the nature of his relationship with the Business to the School or Board administration.

6. In the academic year 2018/2019, the Member sent two pieces of Board property (an English wheel and an impact hammer) to the Business for external use and repair by the Business and failed to report this to the School or the Board.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

7. By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-6 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

8. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 3-6 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

(a) 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);

(b) he committed an act or 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);

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

(d) he practised the profession while in a conflict of interest, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(26).

9. By this document the Member states that:

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

(b) he understands that 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 Discipline 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 with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.

10. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, 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.

11. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, 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 the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on December 19, 2022 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(15), 1(18), 1(19) and 1(26).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 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 paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that during the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 academic years, the Member failed to adequately teach students in his transportation technology classes, and also entered into a conflict of interest by using the School facilities and property to perform work for an external automotive service business.

8The Member failed to comply with the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Member failed to abide by subsections 264(1)(a) and (b) of the Education Act, which require teachers to teach diligently and faithfully the classes that are assigned to them and to encourage pupils in the pursuit of learning. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member clearly failed to do so in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 academic years. The Member taught students primarily through video lessons. When asked questions, he directed students to re-watch video lessons or to ask their questions to other students. The Member failed to ensure that students learned the required curriculum. The Member did not teach most students how to use the paint booth or how to paint a vehicle, and the Member’s use of the paint booth for the Business made it unavailable, at times, for students’ use. The Panel finds it reasonable to conclude that the Member’s failure to teach his transportation technology classes and to engage with students in those classes would have discouraged students in their pursuit of learning.

9The Member contravened subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by committing acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The Member completely disregarded his professional obligations when he failed to teach students the required curriculum, failed to answer their questions, and entered into a conflict of interest for his personal gain. The Panel considers the Member’s use of school property for an external business and his failure to report the nature of his relationship with the Business to the School or Board administration to be dishonest. The totality of the Member’s actions calls into question his moral fitness to discharge his professional duties. He placed his own financial gain above the interests of his students. Accordingly, the Panel finds, based on the Uncontested Facts, that the Member’s conduct can be properly described in this case as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

10The Member’s conduct was also unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s actions undermined the trust that students, parents, schools, and the public place in teachers. Teachers are expected to be committed to their students’ instruction and development, and to not abuse school property. Through his self-serving conduct, the Member did the opposite.

11Finally, the Member practiced the profession while he was in a conflict of interest, contrary to subsection 1(26) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. It was a conflict of interest for the Member to use the School’s auto body shop to perform painting work on cars for an external automotive service business. According to the Uncontested Facts, the Member used the school facilities and the Board’s property (i.e., an English wheel and an impact hammer) for the Business, and in return, received financial benefits from the Business. At the very minimum, the Member should have disclosed the nature of his relationship with the Business to the School or Board administration, and certainly should not have used the paint booth at the expense of students’ learning opportunities.

F. PENALTY Decision

12The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on December 19, 2022, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and the 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;

3. 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, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding curriculum, lesson planning, and instructional strategies, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide the 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 3(a)(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; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in paragraph 3(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.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

13The 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. Tremis, 2016 ONOCT 50 and 2016 ONOCT 51; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Winer, 2021 ONOCT 30.

14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that students in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 academic years did not receive proper instruction because of the Member’s misconduct, as well as that the Member received financial gain at the expense of students’ opportunity to learn. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of witness testimony at 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.

15The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. It is incumbent on teachers to ensure that students learn required course curriculum and to put their professional obligations before their extraprofessional interests. 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.

16Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a two-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While every case is unique in its facts, the misconduct represented in the cases provided by College Counsel is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is appropriate. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear to members and the public that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on January 3, 2023, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

17The Panel finds that a course of instruction regarding, at minimum, curriculum, lesson planning, and instructional strategies will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The Panel directs the Registrar to ensure that the course also includes a conflict of interest component to align with the findings of professional misconduct. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in the instruction of future students and the management of school property.

18The 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.