DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Gregory Konstantinidis, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
GREGORY KONSTANTINIDIS (REGISTRATION #488969)
PANEL: Linda Staudt, OCT, Chair Sarah Choudhury Adam Dharsee, OCT
HEARD: January 30-31, 2023
Lisa Feinberg, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for Gregory Konstantinidis 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 January 30 and 31, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Gregory Konstantinidis (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation.
3Counsel for the College submitted an Affidavit of Christine Le Dressay (Exhibit 2, Tab 3) affirmed on December 5, 2022, to show that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him and the time and date of the hearing. In this affidavit, Ms. Le Dressay, a law clerk with GlickLaw, outlines her communications with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. The Panel accepts, based on this affidavit, that the Member has been unresponsive and has made no contact with College Counsel throughout these proceedings, despite the College’s multiple attempts to contact him via email, courier, and regular mail at his last known address.
4Moreover, the College submitted an Affidavit of Service (Exhibit 3) affirmed by Ms. Le Dressay on January 30, 2023, indicating that the College delivered the Member a letter via courier on January 17, 2023, outlining the College’s position with respect to penalty and costs.
5Based on these affidavits, the Panel was satisfied that the Member had been properly served, at his last known address, with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was informed of the time and date of the hearing, as well as the potential penalty and costs that could be ordered if the panel made a finding of professional misconduct. As the Member was unresponsive and did not appear at his hearing, and given that he was properly served by the College with the above information and disclosure, the Panel heard this matter in the absence of the Member.
A. PUBLICATION ban
6The 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. OVERVIEW
7The College alleged that the Member engaged in numerous instances of professional misconduct between September and December 2019, which included making sexist or racist comments to students, failing to properly address disrespectful and homophobic comments made by students, displaying inappropriate images in class, failing to properly supervise students, and using an e-cigarette or vaping at school.
8The Panel’s task is to determine whether the particulars alleged by the College have been proven on a balance of probabilities and if so, whether the Member’s conduct gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. For the reasons that follow, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in professional misconduct. The Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(7.2) and 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
C. THE ALLEGATIONS
9The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated May 9, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Gregory Konstantinidis 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 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).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS
Gregory Konstantinidis is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a Grade [XXX] and Grade [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.
Between in or around September 2019 and in or around December 2019, the Member made inappropriate comments to students, often in front of his class, including, but not limited to:
(a) calling a male student a “smug, arrogant little kid,” and/or stating, “it was better when you are not here,” or words to that effect;
(b) telling a male student “Oooo, you don’t have enough words here” and/or commenting on the student’s “F level work,” or words to that effect;
(c) commenting about a female student that “her hips are wide,” “her body is shaped like a bottle,” and/or that she had an “hourglass shape,” or words to that effect;
(d) telling a male student “you are going to be a rapist,” or words to that effect;
(e) telling students to “shut up so I can hear every syllable of [a female student’s] words,” or words to that effect;
(f) telling a male student “your learning skills are horrible,” and/or “you’re bad now that you’re young but you’ll be worse when you are older,” or words to that effect;
(g) asking a female student “Are you bleeding?”, or words to that effect, after the female student asked if she could go to the bathroom;
(h) calling a male student a “fool,” or words to that effect;
(i) telling two female students, “that’s where you both get your bad habits from – your parents,” or words to that effect;
(j) telling students “I don’t have time. Stop bothering me,” or words to that effect, in response to requests for help; and/or,
(k) asking a Black female student “why are you bothering those white kids?” or words to that effect, and laughing out loud, after the Member observed the female student playing with two Grade 2 male students in the schoolyard after school.
- Between in or around September 2019 and in or around December 2019, the Member failed to properly respond to, address, or manage inappropriate comments from students, including, but not limited to:
(a) inappropriate, disrespectful and/or homophobic language used by students towards other students including, but not limited to, “fuck,” “gay,” “you are so gay,” “cock,” and “THOT,” or words to that effect;
(b) a student who told the Member, “I can’t hear you because you have a cock too far down your throat,” or words to that effect; and/or
(c) a student who told the Member to “fuck off,” and/or to “shove it up his ass,” or words to that effect;
- Between in or around September 2019 and in or around December 2019, the Member accessed or displayed inappropriate images in class and/or at the School, including, but not limited to:
(a) displaying a print-out of a bikini clad woman crawling on her hands and knees on sandy ground on his desk;
(b) looking at images of women, including, but not limited to women in bikinis, on his Board computer screen which, on one or more occasions, was accessible to students when they came to his desk and/or were printed and left on his desk; and/or,
(c) accessing an image of actress Megan Fox holding her shirt open showing a Supergirl logo painted on her bare breasts.
- Between in or around September 2019 and in or around December 2019, the Member failed to properly instruct or supervise students in his class and/or at the School, including, but not limited to:
(a) failing to supervise students who broke a glass bottle while running in the classroom. The Member subsequently told the students to clean it themselves and said “I don’t care. Do it,” or words to that effect, in response to a female student pointing out that it was broken glass;
(b) refusing to assist students who asked for help and instead stating, “they should have listened,” or words to that effect;
(c) teaching only spelling to his Grade 6 English class over several months of class time;
(d) failing to stop students from bullying a male student when the Member observed the students hit the male student, used profanities towards the student and/or called the student a fat pig and/or a mistake, or words to that effect.
- Between in or around September 2019 and in or around December 2019, the Member used an e-cigarette and/or vaped inside the School.
D. THE MEMBER’S PLEA
10As the Member was not present, the Panel proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.
E. THE EVIDENCE
11The College presented oral and documentary evidence in order to prove the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. Relevant portions of this evidence will be set out in greater detail, as needed, in the Panel’s reasons for decision below. The following is a brief summary of the College’s evidence.
(1) Oral Evidence
12The College sought and the Panel ordered that the witnesses in this matter be excluded from the hearing until called to give evidence, in accordance with Rule 13.12 of the Rules.
13The College called two witnesses: (1) Mervi Salo (“Principal Salo”), the School’s principal at the time of the Member’s alleged misconduct; and (2) Kristin McDonald (“Vice-Principal McDonald”), the School’s vice principal at the time of the Member’s alleged misconduct.
14For reasons that will be set out in greater detail below, as needed, the Panel found that the two witnesses’ evidence was credible and consistent, both internally and externally, with respect to all material facts. Both witnesses were able to properly recall the events and were both frank and honest in their testimony when they did not remember a certain event or fact.
15As the Member chose not to participate in the hearing, no evidence was presented in his defence.
(a) Principal Salo’s Testimony
16At the time of the hearing, Principal Salo was the principal assigned to the School. She previously worked as a principal at the School from 2018 to 2022. Principal Salo became involved in the investigation of the Member’s conduct after she received reports about him from concerned students, parents and other staff members.
17Principal Salo testified about the range of allegations made against the Member which were brought forward by multiple students in October 2019. She further testified about the school’s investigation regarding the Member’s misconduct and her role within the investigation process.
18Principal Salo essentially led the investigation against the Member, which included interviewing students, parents and other staff members of the School. She testified that both she and Vice-Principal McDonald interviewed 16 students, seven parents and five other staff members. In May 2020, she met with the Member to give him an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised during her investigation. Principal Salo testified that, at this meeting, the Member deflected his answers and did not admit the allegations. He did, however, acknowledge that he sometimes made jokes in class, but he could not remember the exact words of the jokes.
(b) Vice-Principal McDonald’s Testimony
19Vice-Principal McDonald was vice-principal at the School from 2016 to 2022, which includes the time of the Member’s alleged misconduct.
20Vice-Principal McDonald testified about the concerns brought forward regarding the Member’s conduct by parents, students and staff members beginning around October 2019.
21Vice-Principal McDonald further testified about her role in the investigation and how she dealt with the concerns and allegations brought forward. She explained that she received instructions from Principal Salo and conducted interviews with students. Vice-Principal McDonald described that when interviewing students, she asked them to write their statements and then asked them clarification questions about their written statements afterwards.
(2) Documentary evidence
(a) Affidavit of Terry Morrison
22The College presented the Affidavit of Terry Morrison affirmed on December 1, 2022 (Exhibit 2, Tab 4). The affidavit details Mr. Morrison’s role as an Analyst in Cyber Security Investigations with the Board and his involvement with the Board’s investigation of the Member’s misconduct. Mr. Morrison affirms that he searched the Board devices accessed by the Member (using the Member’s personal login credentials) for online searches of “hot naked model” and inappropriate images. He was able to locate the images that the Member accessed and the date and time of when the Member viewed the images on these devices. Mr. Morrison further affirmed that his forensic analysis revealed three images of note that could only have been accessed by the Member using his personal login credentials: all three were of Megan Fox, and in one of them, the actress appears to only be wearing body paint on her chest. The metadata associated with the body paint image indicates that it was accessed by the Member’s profile using his personal login credentials on October 24, 2019 at or about 10:54 a.m.
(b) Students’ written statements
23The College presented documentary evidence of the students’ written statements. Although the written statements constitute hearsay, as the students did not testify during the hearing, hearsay evidence is admissible pursuant to section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. Accordingly, the Panel admitted the written statements into evidence. In the opinion of the Panel, the students’ written statements were honest, reliable, detailed, consistent and relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding. They are also necessary for the assessment of the facts, as they constitute a direct account of what occurred during the incidents alleged in the Notice of Hearing. Accordingly, the Panel considers this evidence to be credible and finds that it has probative value. The Panel gave considerable weight to the written statements.
F. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
24College Counsel submitted that the uncontradicted evidence presented to the Panel proves each of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities and that the Panel should therefore find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct. College Counsel submitted that the allegations of professional misconduct against the Member relate to his conduct that can be generally characterized as follows: (1) making inappropriate comments to students and allowing students to make inappropriate comments to each other; (2) accessing and displaying inappropriate images of a scantily clad actress during class time; (3) failing to supervise students or assist them; and (4) vaping on school property. College Counsel further submitted that the oral and documentary evidence it presented was credible and reliable, and that any hearsay evidence presented was admissible and should be given significant weight because it was relevant, consistent, necessary, and reliable.
G. DECISION ON FINDING
(1) Onus and standard of proof
25The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.
(2) Decision
26Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on January 31, 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), and 1(18).
H. REASONS FOR DECISION
27The Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this matter. In the reasons that follow, the Panel comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The reasons are divided into the four general categories of inappropriate behaviour suggested by College Counsel. Under those four general categories, the Panel sets out its factual findings and reasoning with respect to the alleged particulars in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel then sets out why the Member’s conduct amounts to professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct enumerated in the Notice of Hearing.
(1) Factual findings
(a) The Member made inappropriate comments to students and allowed students to make inappropriate comments to each other
28The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member made several inappropriate comments to students and failed to address inappropriate comments made by students themselves, as alleged at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Notice of Hearing.
(i) Particular 3(a)
29The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member called a male student a “smug, arrogant little kid” and/or stated, “it was better when you are not here,” or words to that effect. In making this finding, the Panel relies heavily on the uncontradicted evidence of Vice-Principal McDonald and the written statement of Student 1. During Vice-Principal McDonald’s testimony, she explained that she met with Student 1 who disclosed that the Member called another student a “smug, arrogant little kid” and also stated “it was better when you are not here”. Vice-Principal McDonald explained that during the interview, Student 1 reported to her that the Member said “mean things” to a student. When she asked Student 1 to clarify “mean things”, Student 1 shared that the Member called a student a “smug, arrogant little kid”. The Panel relies on Vice-Principal McDonald’s description of Student 1’s demeanour during the interview; she described Student 1 as being uncomfortable speaking against a teacher and did not seem excited about school, which she normally was. Vice-Principal McDonald also described Student 1 as acting out of character, as she was usually a highly engaged student and always excited to be at school. The Panel found Vice-Principal McDonald to be a credible witness, and had no reason to disbelieve her testimony about Student 1’s behaviour and demeanour. (Exhibit 2, Tab 11L, page 121).
(ii) Particular 3(b)
30The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told a male student “Ooo, you don’t have enough words here” and/or commented on the student’s “F level work,” or words to that effect. In making this finding, the Panel relied heavily on the uncontradicted evidence of Principal Salo, Vice-Principal McDonald and Student 2’s handwritten statement. Principal Salo testified that Student 2 reported to her that the Member commented on his homework stating that it was “F level” in front of the class. Principal Salo explained that Student 2 felt embarrassed and bad about himself. Principal Salo further testified that Student 2 asked her for help as he wanted the Member’s behaviour to stop.
31Vice-Principal McDonald testified about her meeting with Student 2 and how he explained that the Member belittled him and called his homework "trash” and “F level” in front of the whole class. Student 2 also explained to Vice-Principal McDonald that students made fun of him and bullied him, and that the Member did not intervene. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that Student 2 seemed upset and looked flushed and shocked during the interview. She then explained this was unusual because Student 2 was usually always smiling and happy. Student 2 was clear in his meeting with Vice-Principal McDonald that he wanted the Member’s behaviour to stop. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that Student 2 had never asked for her help like this before. The Panel is satisfied with Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald’s description of Student 2’s usual demeanour compared to his demeanour during the interviews, which helps explain why Vice-Principal McDonald believed Student 2 was relaying this information to her not because he wanted to get the Member in trouble but because Student 2 wanted the behaviour to stop. The Panel believes both testimonies and therefore has no reason to believe that Student 2 would be lying to Principal Salo or Vice-Principal McDonald. It was open to the Member to participate in the hearing and challenge the evidence of the witnesses, but he did not do so.
32The Panel finds that both testimonies were credible and corroborated each other, and that they were also consistent with the handwritten statement of Student 2 (Exhibit 2, Tab 11I, p. 114).
(iii) Particular 3(c)
33The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member commented about a female student that “her hips are wide,” “her body is shaped like a bottle,” and/or that she had an “hourglass shape,” or words to that effect after the student bumped into some chairs. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the uncontradicted evidence of Vice-Principal McDonald and Student 3, Student 4 and Student 5’s handwritten statements. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that she interviewed Student 3. During the interview, Student 3 reported that the Member said that her “hips were wide” in front of the whole class. Student 3 also made a handwritten statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 11D, p. 98) that describes this comment by the Member. Vice-Principal McDonald further testified that, during her interview of Student 3, she noticed that Student 3 was embarrassed, spoke softly and seemed uncomfortable. In fact, Vice-Principal McDonald further testified that Student 3 was so embarrassed that she was too uncomfortable to tell her parents about the incident.
34Vice-Principal McDonald also testified that other students, including Student 4 and Student 5, came forward and voiced their concerns regarding the Member’s remarks about Student 3’s body. Student 4’s handwritten statement indicates that she heard the Member say “It was her hips, she’s built like a bottle” (Exhibit 2, Tab 11A, p. 92). Student 5 also reported the same conduct in her statement, where she notes that the Member made “an out of line comment about one girl’s […] hips”(Exhibit 2, Tab 11J, p. 116). Vice-Principal McDonald testified that Student 5 was not as embarrassed as other students were; however, Student 5 knew that the Member’s conduct was wrong. The Panel relies on the fact that multiple students came forward and voiced their concerns to Vice-Principal McDonald regarding the remarks made by the Member about Student 3. Vice-Principal McDonald testified about how the students were uncomfortable and embarrassed when they described the Member’s comments to her. The Panel has no reason to believe that these students were lying during their interviews with the vice-principal and they all consistently described the Member’s comments about Student 3’s body.
(iv) Particular 3(d)
35The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told a male student, “you are going to be a rapist,” or words to that effect. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the uncontradicted evidence of Principal Salo and Student 6’s handwritten statement. Principal Salo testified that Student 6 reported to her that the Member said that a certain male student would become a “rapist”. This hearsay evidence is supported by Student 6’s handwritten statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 11B, p. 94). The Panel is satisfied with the evidence provided and gives significant weight to the student’s handwritten statement which clearly notes that the Member said the Student “would become a rapist”. Additionally, the Panel relies on Principal Salo’s assessment of Student 6’s reliability. Principal Salo testified that Student 6 seemed concerned, agitated and unsettled during the interview, which was out of character for her as she was usually very animated. Principal Salo had no reason to believe that Student 6 was lying.
(v) Particular 3(e)
36The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told students to “shut up so I can hear every syllable of [a female student’s] words,” or words to that effect. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the uncontradicted evidence of Vice-Principal McDonald and written statements including those from Student 5, Student 6 and Student 7. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that Student 7, who has an [XXX] accent, reported to her that the Member had made comments about her accent in front of the whole class. Student 7 expressed that the comment made her feel uncomfortable and embarrassed. This testimony was also supported by written statements from multiple students. For instance, in Student 5’s written statement, she notes that the Member said in front of the class, “Everyone be quiet I want to hear [Student 7] accent” (Exhibit 2, Tab 11J, p. 116). As mentioned above, Vice-Principal McDonald explained during her testimony that during her interviews with students, the students would write their statements, she would then read over their statement with them and ask them clarification questions. When asking the students clarification questions, Vice-Principal McDonald and Principal Salo would then write the students’ answers on their statement during the interview. In Student 6’s written statement, she notes that the Member “also told the class to shut up so he could hear every [syllable] that [Student 7] was saying” (Exhibit 2, Tab 11B, p. 94). The Panel relies on Vice-Principal McDonald’s assessment of Student 7 and Student 5’s reliability; Student 7 was uncomfortable and embarrassed during the interview and Student 5 knew that the Member’s conduct was wrong. Based on this assessment, the Panel has no reason to believe that both Student 7 and Student 5 were lying to Vice-Principal McDonald, and places significant weight on the vice-principal’s assessment of Student 7 and Student 5.
(vi) Particular 3(f)
37The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told a male student “your learning skills are horrible,” and/or “you’re bad now that you’re young but you’ll be worse when you are older,” or words to that effect. In making this finding, the Panel relied heavily on the uncontradicted evidence of Vice-Principal McDonald and Student 8’s written statement. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that she spoke with Student 8’s parent who had concerns regarding the Member’s comments towards Student 8. The parent indicated to Vice-Principal McDonald that Student 8 was afraid to ask for help in class because of the Member’s behaviour, and that it was the first time she had heard Student 8 complain about school. During Vice-Principal McDonald’s interview, Student 8 reported to her that the Member did not care about his students and that the Member told Student 8 that he “had horrible learning skills” and that he “will get worse when he gets older”. Vice-Principal McDonald explained that she knew Student 8 very well, that he seemed down when she spoke with him, and that his self-esteem was affected. This was out of character for Student 8, who was usually a very positive and happy student.
38Vice-Principal McDonald’s testimony is consistent with Student 8’s written statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 11E, p. 100) and with an email exchange between Student 8’s parent and Vice-Principal McDonald which describes the parent’s concerns regarding the Member’s comments in class (Exhibit 2, Tab 8, p. 82). The Panel is therefore satisfied with the evidence provided.
(vii) Particular 3(g)
39The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member asked a female student “Are you bleeding?”, or words to that effect, after the female student asked if she could go to the bathroom. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the uncontradicted evidence of Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald, who both testified that the Member asked this question to Student 4. Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald, separately interviewed Student 4. Student 4 reported to each of them that the Member embarrassed her when she asked him to go to the bathroom by asking her if she “was bleeding”. The Panel finds that the testimony of both Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald’s was consistent. Vice-Principal McDonald further testified that during the interview, Student 4 did not present herself in the way she normally did. The Panel relies on the vice-principal’s assessment of Student 4 and her description of Student 4’s usual demeanour compared to her demeanour during the interview. The Panel has no reason to believe that Student 4 fabricated the statement when she reported it to Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald. The topic is one that would be embarrassing to a student and it is not reasonable to believe that a student would fabricate such a comment and then relay it to the Principal and Vice-Principal of her school, who might be expected to discuss the remark with the student’s parents (thereby continuing the embarrassment to the student).
(viii) Particular 3(h)
40The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member called a male student a “fool,” or words to that effect. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the uncontradicted evidence of Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that she interviewed Student 9 who reported to her that the Member called him a “fool”. Vice-Principal McDonald further testified that Student 9 seemed upset during his interview and Student 9 even said that he should not be dealing with this as a young child. The vice-principal’s testimony was consistent with a contemporaneous email that she received from a special education resource teacher who had spoken with Student 9 about this incident on November 4, 2019 (Exhibit 2, Tab 9, p. 84).
41Principal Salo testified that when they held a meeting with the Member in May 2020 so that he could respond to the concerns that had been raised, the Member admitted that he might have said that the student was acting foolishly, in response to the Principal Salo’s question about whether he called the student a fool. Principal Salo testified that this type of response was consistent with the deflection that she observed in many of the Member’s responses to her questions. The Panel relies on Vice-Principal McDonald’s assessment of Student 9’s demeanour. The fact that Student 9 expressed to Vice-Principal McDonald that he should not be dealing with this type of behaviour from the Member has the ring of truth to it. While the comment was inappropriate, it is reasonable to believe that if a student was fabricating a comment by a teacher in order to get the teacher in trouble, the student would make up a much more egregious comment. The Panel therefore finds that there is sufficient evidence to prove this particular.
(ix) Particular 3(i)
42The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told two female students, “that’s where you both get your bad habits from – your parents,” or words to that effect. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the uncontradicted evidence of Vice-Principal McDonald and the written statements of Student 10 and Student 11. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that Student 10 and Student 11, both of whom were racialized students, reported to her that the Member made a comment along the following lines to them when they were late for class: “I don’t get why a lot of your parents are late, that’s where you both get your bad habits from and it’s because of your parents”. In Student 10’s written statement, she notes that after the Member made the comment, she stormed out of the classroom upset and when she came back to the classroom, she found Student 11 crying in the hallway (Exhibit 2, Tab 11G, p. 104). Student 11’s written statement says substantially the same thing about this incident (Exhibit 2, Tab 11H, p. 112). Vice-Principal McDonald testified that, during her interview with Student 10, the student expressed that the Member did not know her parents and that he should not be making these types of comments. When the Vice-Principal McDonald met with Student 11, she seemed upset, hurt and sad. The Panel has no reason to believe that both Student 10 and Student 11 were lying to Vice-Principal McDonald. Both of their handwritten statements are consistent with the vice-principal’s testimony.
(x) Particular 3(j)
43The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told students “I don’t have time. Stop bothering me,” or words to that effect, in response to requests for help. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the uncontradicted evidence of Vice-Principal McDonald and the vice-principal’s notes from her interview with Student 11. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that Student 11 told her that when students asked for help, the Member would often indicate that he does not have time and to stop bothering him. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that when she met with Student 11, Student 11 was upset and asked Vice-Principal McDonald to write down part of her statement for her (Exhibit 2, Tab 11H, p. 109). The Panel has no reason to believe that Student 11 was lying to Vice-Principal McDonald and relies on the vice-principal’s assessment of Student 11’s reliability.
(xi) Particular 3(k)
44The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member asked a Black female student “why are you bothering those white kids?” or words to that effect, and laughed out loud, after the Member observed the female student playing with two Grade 2 male students in the schoolyard after school. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the uncontradicted evidence of Vice-Principal McDonald and Student 11’s notes and the vice-principal’s notes from the interview with Student 11. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that Student 11’s parent came to school and spoke with her about this incident. The parent indicated that, after school hours, Student 11 was playing outside of the School with two boys. The Member asked Student 11 “why are you bothering those white kids?” and laughed out loud after he made the comment. Student 11’s parent was upset and wanted action against the Member, as this was perceived as an incident of anti-Black racism. Vice-Principal McDonald also testified that she interviewed Student 11 regarding the incident, and that Student 11 notes, in her written statement, that “my teacher was going home on his motorcycle he asked me why was I messing with the two white boys and started laughing” (Exhibit 2, Tab 11H, p. 110). Student 11 told Vice-Principal McDonald that the Member’s comments made her feel upset, hurt and saddened. Vice-Principal McDonald further testified that Student 11 felt targeted by the Member and that the Member made her feel like she had done something wrong. The Panel has no reason to believe that Student 11, a student of a young age, would make up this type of statement. Vice-Principal McDonald spoke to both Student 11 and Student 11’s parent. The Panel therefore relies on the vice-principal’s testimony and assessment of Student 11’s reliability. At no point during the vice-principal’s testimony did she mention that she did not believe Student 11’s statement.
(xii) Particular 4
45The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member failed to properly respond to inappropriate and homophobic comments made by students as alleged at paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the uncontradicted evidence of Principal Salo, and the written statements of Student 13 and Student 14. Both Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald testified that they met and individually interviewed Student 14. Student 14 reported to each of them that the Member allowed students to make homophobic remarks in class and that the Member laughed at inappropriate comments made by students. Principal Salo explained during her testimony that, while Student 14 was sharing this information, she seemed upset and angry. In Student 14’s handwritten statement she notes that the Member “allows kids to make homophobic sexist jokes to others” (Exhibit 2, Tab 11K, p. 119). Student 13 also reported the same conduct to Principal Salo. In Student 13’s handwritten statement she notes that the Member “lets students in our class say things like ‘you’re so gay’ or ‘you’re a THOT1’” (Exhibit 2, Tab 11C, p. 96). Principal Salo further testified that Student 13 seemed upset, angry, and confused as to why a teacher would behave in such a way.
46The Panel did not find any evidence to make a finding with regard to particulars 4(b) and 4 (c). It was however, satisfied with the evidence provided to make a finding for particular 4 (a).
47The Panel finds that given the significant evidence provided by both witnesses and the students’ written statements, it is more likely than not that the Member made several inappropriate comments to students and allowed students to make unacceptable comments to each other without addressing them or intervening. The Panel places significant weight on the hearsay evidence provided by both Principal Salo’s and Vice-Principal McDonald’s testimonies and considers both witnesses, as well as their assessments of the students, reliable. The Panel notes that numerous students reported the same conduct in their written statement.
48Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald’s evidence regarding this allegation is hearsay because they were not in the Member’s classroom when these comments were made, but the Panel finds that their evidence was reliable. The principal and vice-principal conducted a fulsome investigation into the Member’s conduct. They interviewed students separately and did not ask leading questions during their interviews. Both testimonies were consistent and corroborated one another.
(b) The Member accessed and displayed inappropriate images in his class
49The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member accessed and displayed inappropriate images of women in his class, as alleged at paragraph 5 of the Notice of Hearing. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the evidence of Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald, the affidavit of Mr. Morrison, and the written statements of multiple students. Both Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald testified that they met with multiple students who came forward with the same concerns that the Member viewed and displayed images of “naked” models or actresses during class. Many of the students’ written statements described the same conduct.
50In addition, the Panel received the Affidavit of Terry Morrison (Exhibit 2, Tab 4), which explains his forensic analysis of the Board devices that the Member used to access these images. Mr. Morrison affirmed that he was provided with the identification devices that the Member was using, and he affirmed that he searched the devices for any documents that had been accessed by the Member’s profile. Mr. Morrison affirmed that he found an image of actress Megan Fox on the Member’s computer and that it was last accessed by the Member on October 24th, 2019 at or about 10:54 a.m. Principal Salo confirmed in her testimony that at that date and time, the Member was teaching an English class.
51During the testimonies of Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald, they both explained that multiple students came forward to express concerns about the Member viewing inappropriate images during class. Student 7 noted in her written statement that the Member “was on the internet looking at models in bikinis that you could barely see” (Exhibit 2, Tab 11F, p. 102). Student 5 noted in her written statement that she saw the Member’s computer with pictures of women wearing little clothing, that the Member printed one of these pictures, and that Student 5 took the printed picture at the end of the day so that she could show it to the principal (Exhibit 2, Tab 11J, p. 116). Vice-Principal McDonald testified that she spoke with Student 6’s parent who was concerned about the Member’s viewing of inappropriate images in class (Exhibit 2, Tab 10, p. 86). Vice-Principal McDonald also interviewed Student 6 who reported the same information, as indicated in her written statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 11B, p. 93). Multiple students came forward and spoke with Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald about this issue and there was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that multiple students were involved in a conspiracy to fabricate stories about the Member. Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald also testified about the students’ demeanour during the interviews; students were visibly upset and uncomfortable regarding the Member’s behaviour. Principal Salo and Vice-Principal McDonald did not say that students were laughing or smiling during their interviews with them and instead they described the students as being sad, upset and worried, which the Panel believes makes it likely that their claims are reliable.
52In addition to this, during the Member’s opportunity to respond meeting, Principal Salo testified that the Member admitted that he viewed an image of actress Megan Fox, on his computer in class. He explained to the principal that he did this because he wanted to write a poem about her.
53The Panel finds that the facts underlying the allegation in paragraph 5 of the Notice of Hearing have been established. Both witnesses’ testimonies and the students’ written statements are consistent and corroborate each other.
(c) The Member failed to adequately supervise or assist students
54The Panel finds that the Member failed to adequately supervise and assist students as alleged at paragraphs 6(a), (b) and (d) of the Notice of Hearing, but no finding is made with respect to paragraph 6(c) of the Notice of Hearing, as the College presented no evidence in relation to that particular.
(i) Particular 6(a)
55The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member failed to supervise students who broke a glass bottle while running in the classroom, and subsequently told them to clean it themselves and said “I don’t care. Do it,” or words to that effect, in response to a female student pointing out that it was broken glass. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the evidence of Vice-Principal McDonald and the written statement of Student 1. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that she interviewed Student 1 who reported that it was often unsafe in class and that students were often given free time. In relation to the broken glass bottle incident in particular, Student 1 told Vice-Principal McDonald that, while students were running in the classroom, a student accidentally broke a glass water bottle. When the students asked for the Member’s help, he told the student to “clean it up by themselves”. Student 1 explained to Vice-Principal McDonald that they tried to tell the Member that it was unsafe but the Member insisted that they clean it up anyway. Vice-Principal McDonald also met with Student 1’s parent, who relayed the same concern regarding the broken glass bottle incident.
56Vice-Principal McDonald further testified that Student 1 was usually a highly engaged student and that during the meeting she seemed uncomfortable speaking against a teacher and no longer excited about going to his class. Student 1’s written statement is consistent with the testimony of Vice-Principal McDonald (Exhibit 2, Tab 11L, p. 122). The Panel relies on Vice-Principal McDonald’s assessment of Student 1’s reliability; she explained to the Panel that during the interview she was not herself. The fact that the student was uncomfortable relaying the concerns makes it likely that the student’s claim is reliable. If the student was fabricating a story, it is likely that they would be excited or eager to talk to the principal. Furthermore, while the conduct is concerning, it is not the sort of story that a child would fabricate (i.e., it is not particularly exciting or titillating).
(ii) Particular 6(b)
57The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member refused to assist students who asked for help and instead stated, “they should have listened,” or words to that effect. In making this finding, the Panel relied on the evidence of Vice-Principal McDonald and the written statement of Student 8. Vice-Principal McDonald testified about her interview with Student 8, who reported that when he asked the Member for help, the Member told him that “he should have been listening”. This testimony is supported by Student 8’s written statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 11E, p. 100). Additionally, Vice-Principal McDonald testified that she knew Student 8 very well, and that he was acting out of character during the interview because he is usually a positive and happy student. However, during the interview, he was uncomfortable and seemed down on himself. The Panel relies on the vice-principal’s assessment of Student 8, given that she knew him very well and found him to be uncomfortable and downcast when talking to her. The Panel has no reason to believe that Student 8 was lying to the vice-principal or that he would fabricate such a statement. The behaviour, while problematic, is again, not particularly exciting such that it would be the subject of fabrication by students.
(iii) Particular 6(c)
58College counsel submitted that they were not seeking a factual finding with respect to paragraph 6(c) of the Notice of Hearing, as no evidence was presented to prove it. The Panel therefore makes no finding in respect to this particular.
(iv) Particular 6(d)
59The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member failed to stop students from bullying a male student when the Member observed the students hit the male student and use profanities towards the student. Vice-Principal McDonald explained during her testimony that she met with Student 12 and Student 12’s parent. Student 12 explained to Vice-Principal McDonald that some students in class called him names and swore at him. He explained that there was a physical altercation between him and other students in the class and that the Member did not intervene. Vice-Principal McDonald further testified that Student 12 was a very timid student and that he seemed uncomfortable when he reported this information.
60Even though there was no written statement from Student 12 and the Panel was only presented with hearsay evidence regarding this particular, the Panel finds that Vice-Principal McDonald’s testimony was credible as she had a good recollection of the events and the conversations she had with Student 12 and Student 12’s parent. In addition, the Panel relies on the vice-principal’s testimony regarding Student 12’s demeanour. Vice-Principal McDonald described Student 12 as a very timid student who was uncomfortable during the interview. It seems unreasonable to believe that a timid, uncomfortable student would fabricate a story and tell it to the vice-principal of the school.
(d) The Member vaped on school property
61The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member vaped inside the School as alleged at paragraph 7 of the Notice of Hearing. The Panel based its finding solely on Vice-Principal McDonald’s testimony. Vice-Principal McDonald described three incidents in which she used the single-use bathroom immediately after the Member and noticed a thick cloud resembling vape and smelled vaping products around the Member. Vice-Principal McDonald further testified that no one else was present when she smelled the vaping products around the Member. There was also an incident where Vice-Principal McDonald passed the Member in the hallway and smelled vaping products on the Member and no one else was present in the hallway. Vice-Principal McDonald explained that two other staff members also reported the same conduct, and that she then reported these incidents to Principal Salo. As mentioned above, the Panel finds that Vice-Principal McDonald was a credible witness and relied on her oral testimony to make a finding with respect to this allegation.
(2) Legal Conclusions
62The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct set out above gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member abused students verbally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7); he abused students psychologically or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2); and 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).
(a) The Member abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7)
63The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused students by making inappropriate comments to them, including comments of a sexist and racist nature. As set out above, the Member repeatedly demeaned students by making rude and insensitive comments to them about their bodies, their parents and their academic abilities, among other things. He told a male student that he was going to be a rapist, and he made other discouraging and hurtful comments to his students. He told the class to be quiet so that he could listen to a female student’s [XXX] accent. The Panel finds that the Member’s comments created a toxic environment in his class. Given his position of trust and authority as a teacher, his belittling, sexist, racist, and otherwise offensive comments amount to verbal abuse of students.
(b) The Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2)
64The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused students. The Panel finds that it is reasonable to conclude that the Member’s demeaning, racist, and sexist comments would make his young grade [XXX] and [XXX] students feel uncomfortable and demoralized. Moreover, the Member failed to stop students from bullying, hitting and saying rude and hurtful things to another student right in from of him. It is the responsibility of a teacher to foster an emotionally safe learning environment. The Member failed to meet this expectation through either his indifference or his outright abusive comments made to his students. The Panel also gave significant weight to Vice-Principal McDonald’s observations and descriptions of the impact that the Member’s conduct had on students. Vice-Principal McDonald testified that when she interviewed students as part of her investigation, she observed that several of them were uncomfortable, embarrassed, upset and hurt as a result of the Member’s behaviour. Vice-Principal McDonald knew these students quite well and testified about their usual demeanour and also how their demeanour was different when relaying to her information about the Member’s actions.
65Given the power that teachers hold in a classroom and the fact that the Member misused his power by making inappropriate comments to students, including ones of a racist and sexist nature, the Member’s conduct would reasonably have had an adverse psychological or emotional impact on students (and indeed did for some who were interviewed by Vice-Principal McDonald). The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s behaviour towards students was psychologically or emotionally abusive.
(c) The Member 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)
66The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. Conduct characterized as “disgraceful” is considered the most egregious. Disgraceful conduct casts doubt on a member’s moral fitness and ability to discharge their professional duties. Dishonourable conduct is considered to be less severe than disgraceful conduct, but more severe than unprofessional conduct, and it is conduct that also has an element of moral failing to it. Unprofessional conduct is that which shows a disregard for a member’s professional obligations or demonstrates poor professional judgment.
67The Member’s offensive comments, including his racist and sexist comments, his comment that a male student was going to be a rapist, and his commenting on the body of a female student, were disgraceful and dishonourable as they showed a lack of moral judgment and respect for the human dignity of his students. It was similarly disgraceful and dishonourable for the Member to access and display inappropriate images of scantily clad women in his class. These images objectified women, were completely inappropriate for a learning environment, and sent a terrible message to his young adolescent students. Moreover, the Member’s decision to be a bystander and to not intervene when students were blatantly bullying another student in his presence showed a complete lack of compassion, and a disregard for the Member’s moral responsibilities as a teacher.
68The Member’s conduct was also unprofessional. He failed to supervise and assist students who had broken a glass bottle and asked for his help, thus exposing them to a risk of harm or injury, which is contrary to his professional obligation to keep students safe. It was also unprofessional for the Member to fail to properly manage inappropriate comments from students, including homophobic and offensive slurs made by students. By doing nothing to address this inappropriate behaviour, the Member served as a poor role model and he showed an inability to manage his class. Finally, it was unprofessional for the Member to vape in school, as this again demonstrated that he was a poor role model and showed a blatant disregard for his professional obligations and his role as a leader in the school community.
I. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
69College Counsel submitted that the appropriate penalty in this case is a reprimand, a 12-month suspension, and coursework regarding classroom management and diversity and sensitivity training. College Counsel submitted that this penalty appropriately considers the guiding principles of specific deterrence, general deterrence, remediation, and public protection.
70College Counsel briefly presented the Panel with six previous cases decided by the Discipline Committee in order to establish that the proposed penalty is appropriate and falls within the range of penalties ordered for similar misconduct in the past: Ontario College of Teachers v Antonenko, 2019 ONOCT 79; Ontario College of Teachers v Chrisopoulos, 2022 ONOCT 101 (“Chrisopoulos”); Ontario College of Teachers v Fazl, 2020 ONOCT 222; Ontario College of Teachers v Glazer, 2018 ONOCT 37; Ontario College of Teachers v Reinders, 2017 ONOCT 62 and Ontario College of Teachers v Towler, 2015 ONOCT 79.
J. PENALTY DECISION
71On January 31, 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 “Register”).
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 12 months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee.
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 Decision, Reasons for Decision and 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 classroom management, anti-Black racism, diversity and sensitivity training, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide the course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the document 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.
K. REASONS FOR PENALTY
72In arriving at its decision with respect to penalty, the Panel carefully considered the College’s evidence and submissions. The Panel was also mindful of the guiding principles that penalty orders should address, including specific and general deterrence, remediation (in appropriate cases), and public protection.
73The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. An aggravating factor in the Member’s case is the repetitive nature of the Member’s misconduct. The young age, and the number of students impacted by the Member’s conduct was also an aggravating factor. The fact that the Member showed no insight into his behaviour or accountability, as evidenced by the fact that he deflected questions when responding to the concerns during his meeting with the principal, and failed to engage with the College in any way in his discipline process is also an aggravating factor. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member has no prior disciplinary record.
74The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a written reprimand. Members are expected to be positive role models and their conduct must be reflective of the acceptance and inclusiveness expected in schools. By repeatedly making offensive comments, sometimes of a racist and sexist nature, towards students and by demeaning student’s work and abilities in front of their peers, the Member failed to meet these expectations. 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. With respect to the form of the reprimand, the Panel accepts College Counsel’s submission that a written reprimand is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
75The Panel finds that a 12-month suspension is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Of the similar decisions presented by College Counsel, the Panel found Chrisopoulos to be the most helpful and relevant. In that decision, Mr. Chrisopoulos received a 12-month suspension for having made multiple offensive comments that were racist and otherwise inappropriate in class. Although, the Panel has considered that some of the comments made in that decision are more serious, in this present matter there are many other allegations against the Member, such as failing to properly supervise students and accessing inappropriate images in class. The Panel finds that a 12-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The 12-month suspension meets the penalty principles of public protection as well as specific and general deterrence. Ensuring that the Member cannot hold a teaching position for 12 months will protect students from any further sexist and racist conduct during that period. The suspension will also 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 and cannot be tolerated in a learning environment.
76The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management, anti-Black racism, diversity and sensitivity training will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students. The coursework should provide the Member with an awareness of the adverse impacts of racism, conscious and unconscious bias as well as stereotypes in a learning environment. It should also provide the Member with strategies to remedy racist and discriminatory practices, and a clear understanding of how to be more culturally sensitive in his professional practice.
77The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
L. costs submissions of college counsel
78The College sought an order for costs payable by the Member to the College pursuant to subsection 30(5) at paragraph 4 of the Act. College Counsel submitted that the Panel should be guided by rule 16.05(3) and Tariff A of the Rules in making the costs order. Read together, rule 16.05(3) and Tariff A provide that the College need not provide evidence of the costs of a day of hearing if the amount claimed is equal to or less than $10,000 per day of hearing.
79College Counsel sought costs against the Member in the amount of $12,500 given that the hearing lasted between one and one and a half days.
M. costs order
80On January 31, 2023, the Panel made the following order as to costs:
- The Member is ordered to pay costs to the College fixed in the amount of $12,500, which must be paid within 90 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee.
N. reasons for costs
81The Panel is empowered by s. 30(5) at paragraph 4 of the Act to order costs payable by a member to the College where it has found that member guilty of professional misconduct.
82Given the Panel’s decision that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct, it is appropriate to order costs against the Member so that the financial burden of these proceedings is apportioned between the parties. College Counsel was originally going to seek a costs order in the amount of $15,000 but given that the hearing lasted a little less than a day and a half, College Counsel submitted that it would only be seeking $12,500 in costs. College Counsel relied on the decision Ontario College of Teachers v Fazl, 2020 ONOCT 222 which cites Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2019 ONOCT 20(“Hall”). The Hall decision provides the factors to take into consideration when ordering costs. The Panel relies on the fact that the Member was unresponsive and uncooperative throughout these proceedings and did not respond to any of the College’s communications. The Panel was satisfied with the Affidavit of Service affirmed by Ms. Le Dressay on January 30, 2023 (Exhibit 3), which indicates that the Member had been notified that the College would be seeking a costs order. The Panel notes that the College was successful on all allegations and that no evidence was provided as to the Member’s inability to pay.
83As the hearing lasted a little less than a day and a half, the Panel therefore finds it is reasonable to seek costs payable by the Member in the amount of $12,500, which is consistent with Tariff A.
Date: April 30, 2023
Linda Staudt, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Sarah Choudhury Member, Discipline Panel
Adam Dharsee, OCT Member, Discipline Panel