Ontario College of Teachers v. Papps, 2023 ONOCT 40

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Papps 2023 ONOCT 40

Date: 2023-06-09

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 Ronald Vinton Papps, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

RONALD VINTON PAPPS (REGISTRATION #478630)

PANEL: Emma Rhodes, Chair Sandra Pizzuti, OCT Terrence Singh, OCT

HEARD: May 26, 2023

COUNSEL: Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Diana Mazzotta, for Ronald Vinton Papps Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on May 26, 2023, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Ronald Vinton Papps (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation.

3The 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

4The 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

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 2, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Ronald Vinton Papps is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(b) 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);

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Ronald Vinton Papps is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario as a Vice-Principal at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Cornwall, Ontario. The 2017-2018 academic year was the Member’s first year as a Vice-Principal.

3. At all material times, Teacher A was a [XXX] teacher at the School.

4. At all material times, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] female student at the School, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] female student at the School, and Student 3 was a Grade [XXX] male student at the School. At all material times, Teacher A was their [XXX] teacher.

Student 1:

5. After school on April 19, 2018, the father of Student 1 contacted the Member and informed him that on more than one occasion Teacher A had touched Student 1 on her shoulder where her bra strap was, and on that particular day Teacher A had touched Student 1 on her leg. Student 1’s father told the Member that he wanted Student 1 removed from Teacher A’s class immediately.

6. The Member informed Student 1’s father that the Principal was not in the School at the moment, but that he would relay the message to her the next morning.

7. Early on April 20, 2018, the Member told the Principal that he had received a call from Student 1’s father the previous afternoon, and he reported what Student 1’s father told him verbatim. Later that morning, the Member observed the Principal talking to Student 1 in her office. The Member was not part of their conversation.

8. That afternoon, the Principal informed the Member that she had switched Student 1 out of Teacher A’s [XXX] class into an online class instead, and that Student 1 and her father were satisfied with that resolution. As a result, the Member understood the matter had been settled.

9. The Member did not report the matter to the appropriate authorities upon being informed of the allegation by Student 1’s father. He never followed up with Student 1 or her father. As a new Vice-Principal, he deferred to the Principal’s judgment and assumed the matter had been dealt with appropriately by the Principal.

Student 2 and Student 3:

10. At some point during the spring semester of the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 3 approached the Member to report that Student 2 told him that Teacher A had touched her inappropriately on her leg and made her feel uncomfortable. Student 3 explained that Student 2 was afraid to tell the administration herself, and added that he had observed Teacher A act inappropriately around certain female students in class.

11. The Member was aware that Student 3 and Teacher A did not get along. The Member questioned Student 3 briefly about his observations and believed they were unfounded, and advised Student 3 that Student 2 needed to report the allegation herself, not through someone else.

12. The Member did not report the matter to the appropriate authorities upon being informed of the allegation. He did not follow up with Student 2, or speak to other students about whether there were any concerns regarding Teacher A’s conduct in class.

13. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the College’s Professional Advisories on the Duty to Report (June 2015, updated June 2018).

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

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

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

16. By this document the Member states that:

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

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

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

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and the advice of legal counsel.

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

18. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on May 26, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to take the appropriate next steps after becoming aware of allegations that a teacher was inappropriately touching students.

9The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). In particular, the Member breached the standards of practice of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” and “Leadership in Learning Communities,” as well as the ethical standards of “Care,” “Respect,” “Trust” and “Integrity.” The standard of practice of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” requires members to be dedicated in their care and commitment to students, treat students equitably and with respect, and be sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning. The Member failed to do so when he did not report the allegations of Teacher A’s inappropriate behaviour to the proper authorities and when he did not consider the seriousness of Student 2 and Student 3’s concerns and explore them further. The Member also failed to adhere to the standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities,” which requires members to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities to facilitate student success. As a member of the teaching profession and a Vice-Principal, the Member was in a leadership position and was trusted to ensure students’ safety. The Member failed to do so when he did not report the allegations from Student 1’s father to the proper authorities, failed to follow up with Student 2 and dismissed Student 3’s concerns without proper consideration. In doing so, the Member failed to ensure a safe and collaborative learning environment for students.

10Additionally, the Member failed to act in accordance with the ethical standards for the teaching profession. The standard of “Care” requires members to be compassionate and committed to students’ well-being and learning through their professional judgment and empathy. The standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity and emotional wellness, and model respect for social justice. The standard of “Trust” prescribes fairness, openness and honesty, and the standard of “Integrity” requires members to embody honesty and reliability. The Member failed to adhere to all these ethical standards when he failed to take appropriate action to protect Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3. He did not report the allegations that Teacher A was inappropriately touching students to the proper authorities, and he failed to follow up with Student 2 and Student 3 on their serious concerns. Vulnerable students trusted the Member to take appropriate action. His failure to do so was indicative of his breaches of the ethical standards for the teaching profession.

11The Panel notes that the Member may not have had a legal duty to report the allegations to the proper authorities (namely the Children’s Aid Society) as the students involved were not under 16-years of age. However, the Panel finds that the Member had an ethical duty to report the allegations to the appropriate authorities, as noted in the College’s Professional Advisory – Duty to Report (Exhibit 2 at Exhibit B). The Member’s professional judgment ought to be informed by these ethical standards and moral duties. The Member’s failure to align his professional practice with such standards is a breach of his duties as a teacher.

12The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). The Member failed to report multiple concerning allegations of Teacher A’s inappropriate conduct to the proper authorities and did not follow up with the students accordingly. This demonstrated the Member’s lack of professional judgment. Teachers hold a unique position of trust and authority, and they are required to behave professionally and take action to address potential harm and danger to students. The Member failed to do so, and as such, did not exercise sound professional judgment.

13The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Students, parents, and the school community expect that members of the teaching profession will exercise good judgment when caring for their children. The Member’s failure to take appropriate action to protect Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3 undermines the reputation of the teaching profession and violates the trust that the public places in teachers to protect their children.

F. PENALTY DECISION

14The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on May 26, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, or by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

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

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics with a focus on the duty to report, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

15The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.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. Blain, 2022 ONOCT 61; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Tallevi, 2011 ONOCT 33.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the Member’s lengthy experience as a teacher prior to becoming a Vice-Principal; and his leadership position as a Vice-Principal. He ought to have been familiar with his duties given his lengthy teaching experience. In terms of mitigating factors, the Panel considered that the Member was relatively new to the position of a Vice-Principal; the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing; and the fact that he has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of misconduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to ensure students’ safety and well-being, which the Member failed to do by not taking the appropriate action to protect Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3. 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.

18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics with a focus on the duty to report, will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

19The 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.```