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
Shayne Russel Byrne, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
SHAYNE RUSSEL BYRNE (REGISTRATION #460683)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Scott Barker, OCT Élaine Legault
HEARD: June 15, 2023
Emilie Bruneau, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Jean-Michel Corbeil, for Shayne Russel Byrne
Renée Kopp, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on June 15, 2023, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Shayne Russel Byrne (the “Member”) attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.
A. PUBLICATION BAN
3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated September 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 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
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Shayne Russel Byrne is a member of the College. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire catholique Providence (the “Board”) as a teacher at École [XXX] (the “School”) in Windsor, Ontario. During the 2019-2020 academic year, Student 1 was a [XXX] year-old male Grade [XXX] student.
On Friday, December 13, 2019, after the final bell of the school day, the Member was walking down the school hallway toward the main office. Many students were in the hallway and it was very noisy.
On his way to the office, the Member overheard a student (Unknown Student) say that Student 1 was going to bring a gun to school (Student 1). The Member was aware that Student 1 had a history of behavioural difficulties.
The Member was unable to determine the source of the comment in the noisy hallway. He did not immediately report what he had heard to the school principal, and his choice not to do so could have jeopardized the safety of the students at the school.
At a [XXX] tournament held on December 14 and 15, 2019, a parent mentioned Student 1 to the Member. The parent stated their concerns about Student 1’s behaviour toward other students.
Following this discussion, the Member reflected further on the December 13, 2019, incident and what he had overheard in the school hallway.
On the morning of Monday, December 16, 2019, the Member told principal what he had heard on December 13, 2019.
The school contacted the police, who visited the premises and investigated. The police searched the school but did not find a gun.
On January 10, 2020, the Member received a reprimand in writing in relation to the December 13, 2019, incident. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the letter sent by the principal to the Member, dated January 10, 2020.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
c) he pleads no contest to the findings by the College that the Uncontested Facts and allegations constitute professional misconduct as described in this document, and agrees that the Discipline Committee may make this finding without a hearing;
d) 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;
e) he understands that by entering a plea of no contest to these allegations, he is waiving his right to present evidence with respect to the conclusions to be drawn by the Discipline Committee;
f) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to present evidence relating to the order the Discipline Committee must make in accordance with the facts presented in the present Statement of Uncontested Facts and the resulting conclusions drawn;
g) 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;
h) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
i) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.23 for the purposes of such proceedings under the Act and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee finds 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 June 15, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member did not immediately disclose to the principal that he had heard another student say that Student 1 was going to bring a gun to school.
8They show that the Member failed to comply with section 26 of the College’s by-laws, which sets out the ethical and professional standards of the teaching profession. More specifically, the Member violated the ethical standards of Trust and Integrity. The ethical standard of trust embodies open-mindedness and provides that members’ professional relationships with the public and the school community are based on trust. The ethical standard of integrity encompasses reliability and moral conduct. At the end of the day on December 13, 2019, the Member overheard a student in the hallway say that Student 1 was going to bring a gun to school. However, he did not immediately notify his principal. He only did so after another parent at the school mentioned his concerns about Student 1, which was three days after he had overheard the comment. This delay gave the principal little time to deal with the situation. The Member’s decision not to immediately disclose what he had heard could also have jeopardized the students’ safety. Teachers are responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of students while they are at school. They are expected to report threats from students to their principal immediately. The Panel finds that by delaying to report concerning information, the Member failed to meet the ethical standards of trust and integrity. The Panel also gave significant weight to the fact that the Member did not contest that he had breached section 1 (14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
9The 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). By failing to immediately report a student’s comments about Student 1 to the principal, the Member delayed the school’s response to a situation that could have jeopardized the safety of both students and staff. Members of the teaching profession must prioritize the safety and well-being of students and follow proper procedures when they see or hear comments that may pose a risk to student safety. Members of the College could reasonably consider that the Member’s failure to take urgent action in the face of a potentially very serious situation was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
10Finally, the Member’s conduct is unbecoming a member, contrary to section 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as he has tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession and undermined the public’s trust in teachers to ensure students’ safety at all times.
F. PENALTY DECISION
11The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 15, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing on the present matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the office of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
a) Within 120 days of the date of this Order, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding the duty to report threats made by students, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The Member shall provide to 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 sub-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 and objectives of the course to be undertaken by the Member.
b) Within 30 days of his completion of the course referred to in paragraph (a) above, the Member shall provide written evidence to the Registrar:
(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
12The 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 too harsh nor too lenient such that it would 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. Barwinski, 2019 ONOCT 58, Ontario College of Teachers v. Opare, 2021 ONOCT 20 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Saari, 2022 ONOCT 99.
13The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The only aggravating factor in the present matter is the fact that the Member’s inaction over three days when facing a potentially very serious situation compromised the safety of the students and of the school community. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Furthermore, he has no previous disciplinary record. The Member’s Counsel also indicated that his client felt remorse. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
14The Panel finds that the Member merits a reprimand for failing to immediately report a potential threat he overheard in the school hallway. As a teacher, the Member should have exercised better professional judgment in taking steps to notify the principal. Delaying reporting the threat gave the principal little time to intervene and compromised the safety of the entire school community. 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.
15The Panel finds that the course on the duty to report threats made by students will assist with the Member’s rehabilitation. It will remind him of his obligations as a teacher, guide his professional judgment and help him make better decisions in order to ensure the safety of all staff and students at school.
16The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: June 26, 2023
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Scott Barker, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.