DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Matar 2023 ONOCT 48

Date: 2023-06-27

DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Edward William Matar, OCT a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

EDWARD WILLIAM MATAR (REGISTRATION #258768)

PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair

Scott Barker, OCT

Kirby Chown, OCT

HEARD: November 15 and 16, 2022; and January 13, 2023

Christine Wadsworth and Linette King, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Edward William Matar, self-represented

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 November 15 and 16, 2022, and January 13, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Edward William Matar (the “Member”) attended the hearing and was self-represented.

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. OVERVIEW

4The Member had been employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as an Occasional Teacher (“OT”) at various high schools including [XXX] Institute (the “School”) for a number of years. The College alleged that, during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 academic years, the Member made multiple disrespectful, inappropriate comments to students about their appearance and behaviour. He also allegedly made disparaging comments about the School and threw chalk in the classroom. It is alleged that the Member failed to adequately control his class on multiple occasions, which required the Principal of the School to intervene on at least one occasion.

5The Panel’s task is to determine whether the facts 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), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

C. THE ALLEGATIONS

6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 24, 2020 (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 maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);¹

(b) he abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);²

(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) 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);

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

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS

1. Edward William Matar is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board as an Occasional Teacher at [XXX] Institute in Etobicoke, Ontario.

3. In the academic year 2017-2018, Student 1 was a [XXX] year-old female student at the School.

4. In or about the academic year 2016-2017, the Member said “I don’t want kids in the class like you” to African Canadian students in his class, or words to that effect.

5. On or about December 13, 2017, the Member interacted with Student 1 in a disrespectful or inappropriate manner including using words to the following effect:

(a) told Student 1 that he wanted her out of the class;

(b) when asked why he wanted her to leave said “look at you” while looking at her and/or her hijab;

(c) “for a very small girl, you have a big mouth”;

(d) told Student 1 that she was “racist”.

6. On or about December 13, 2017, the Member communicated with students in a disrespectful manner including:

(a) referred to a student as the “Queen of Sheba”, or words to that effect;

(b) referred to a student as the “Queen of trouble”, or words to that effect;

(c) said “I feel sorry for your mother”, or words to that effect;

(d) said “the reason you talk so much is because you have a hearing defect”, or words to that effect;

(e) said “this school should be a community centre/school not a [XXX] school” and or [XXX] should be called [XXX] Community School and not [XXX]”, or words to that effect;

(f) said “the juice got into your head, you’re crazy”, or words to that effect;

(g) said “if you were my child, you would not be like this”, or words to that effect;

(h) said “if you used your ears more than your mouth, you would be more successful”, or words to that effect;

(i) called a student a “clown”, or words to that effect;

(j) spoke inappropriately and/or disrespectfully to students;

(k) communicated his name to students in an aggressive manner.

7. On or about December 13, 2017, the Member failed to effectively manage the classroom or students in his class including that he:

(a) threw chalk in the classroom;

(b) failed to adequately control the class;

(c) required the Principal to intervene with respect to his interactions with a student or students;

(d) failed to maintain an appropriate learning environment in the classroom.

D. THE MEMBER’S PLEA

7The Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

E. COLLEGE’S EVIDENCE

8The 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

9The College called two witnesses: (1) Shirley Nartey (“Ms. Nartey”), a Child and Youth Worker (“CYW”) who was present during the Member’s Grade [XXX] [XXX] class during Period 4 on December 13, 2017 (“Period 4”); and (2) Dilwar Alvi (“Mr. Alvi”), the School’s Principal at the times of the allegations, who was present in the Member’s Period 4 classroom and accompanied the Member to the Principal’s office afterwards.³

(a) Ms. Nartey’s Testimony

10At the time of the hearing and at the time of the events in question, Ms. Nartey was a CYW employed by the Board. Ms. Nartey had been working as a CYW with the Board for over 20 years and at the School since September 2015. As a CYW, Ms. Nartey assists students with learning difficulties on a one-on-one basis in her office, working with them on their academic work, social skills and providing counselling and mentoring support. Due to the large number of students at the School and their high needs, Ms. Nartey was also assigned to one or two classrooms to be a resource to teachers who had students with behavioural issues. Ms. Nartey described how she typically worked along with the teacher to come up with strategies to help students succeed in the classroom. In the 2017-2018 academic year, Ms. Nartey recalled that she was the only CYW at the School.

11Ms. Nartey testified that she had never met the Member prior to December 13, 2017. For the week prior to December 13, 2017, Ms. Nartey was assigned to the Period 4 class and observed the students. Ms. Nartey worked with the teacher usually assigned to this class, developing strategies to improve the classroom by managing students’ behaviour and helping the students learn better. Some strategies Ms. Nartey identified included: separating certain students, changing the seating plan, shortening the lessons, and dividing students into groups or individually. Ms. Nartey reported that the classroom still had some issues, but the strategies resulted in some improvement.

12Ms. Nartey testified that on December 13, 2017, she was assigned to the Period 4 class. The Member, as an OT, was also assigned to the Period 4 class to fill in for the regular teacher. During lunch (which was prior to Period 4), Ms. Nartey recalled that she spoke with the Member and informed him that she would be assisting him with the class, and that the class was large, with 25 students, 10 of whom had behavioural issues. Ms. Nartey testified that she told the Member that she would deal with the students’ behaviour and that the Member could focus on the academic lesson plans. Ms. Nartey recalled that the Member told her about his difficult 2nd period class (“Period 2”). She commiserated with him about his challenging morning and assured him that she would be there in Period 4 to assist him.

13Ms. Nartey testified about the events that occurred in the Period 4 class, including the behaviour of the students and the Member’s response and attempts to control the classroom. She testified about the Member’s heated conversation with Student 1 and described her (Ms. Nartey’s) attempts to de-escalate the situation. Ms. Nartey recalled the events that followed, including Mr. Alvi’s intervention and her discussions with the students and the permanently assigned teacher afterwards. Ms. Nartey testified that in her years of employment with the Board, she had never witnessed a teacher behaving in the way that the Member had.

(b) Mr. Alvi’s Testimony

14At the time of the allegations, Mr. Alvi was the Principal at the School and had held this position for 10 years. In addition to two Vice-Principals, Mr. Alvi was responsible for, among other things, general oversight of the school as well as dealing with student discipline, and attending a classroom if requested. Typically, when a teacher needed assistance from the administration, the teacher would buzz the office. Mr. Alvi testified that if it was a situation where the teacher needed assistance from the administration, then a School-Based Safety Monitor (“SBSM”) would be sent to attend to the class. Mr. Alvi testified that he and the Vice-Principals would only attend if they were specifically asked to, or if there was an emergency, including a physical fight or a medical situation.

15Mr. Alvi also testified about his knowledge of the Member’s Period 2 class. Although he was not personally involved, Mr. Alvi was aware that the majority of the Member’s Period 2 students were disruptive and were subsequently removed from class and sent to a conference room for the remainder of the period. Mr. Alvi noted that although having so many students removed from the classroom was not typical, the process by which they were removed by the Member was appropriate.

16Mr. Alvi testified about his involvement in the Member’s Period 4 class. He first became aware of the situation from a SBSM who told him that he should come to the class because the teacher was requesting the Principal’s assistance. After arriving at the classroom, Mr. Alvi witnessed the commotion between the Member and Student 1, both of whom accused the other of being racist. Mr. Alvi asked the Member to step away from the classroom and then spoke with the Member in the Principal’s office. He allowed the Member to go home early for the day. Mr. Alvi then spoke with Student 1 and asked her to provide him with a written statement of the events that had occurred, which she did.

17Mr. Alvi then emailed the manager of the OT office at the Board, Sam Venneri, to ask about what his next steps should be as he was aware he should contact Mr. Venneri whenever there were issues with OTs (Exhibit 8). Within the following week, Mr. Alvi interviewed students from the Member’s Period 2 and Period 4 classes and obtained written statements from them which he subsequently transcribed and put into a report that was made Exhibit 6. He obtained written statements from Ms. Nartey and the SBSM who was also present during Period 4.

18Mr. Alvi also testified about the meeting that he had with the Member on January 23, 2018. Exhibit 10 contained a summary of the meeting made by a third party which Mr. Alvi confirmed was accurate.

19Mr. Alvi also testified that OTs are expected to uphold the Board’s Mission and Values (Exhibit 11) and the Respectful Learning and Working Environment Policy (Exhibit 12), which remind members of the teaching profession to provide a learning and working environment where students are supported to become responsible members of society and where everyone is treated with “respect,” and “dignity,” and is “free from all objectionable conduct including violence, harassment, bullying/intimidation and discrimination” (Exhibit 12).

(2) Documentary Evidence

20College Counsel produced written statements from the students. The Panel gave limited weight to these statements, as the students were not called to give evidence and were not subject to cross-examination by the Member.

21The Panel also admitted a letter from Kipling Collegiate Institute dated October 26, 2016, which indicated that the Member was disciplined for disrespectful and belittling behaviour to students (Exhibit 16). However, the Panel places little weight on this prior disciplinary letter in reviewing the evidence relevant to the allegations, and does not rely on it for purposes of propensity or in finding that the Member’s past behaviour is indicative of the likelihood that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct here. The Panel does accept that the letter demonstrates that the Member had previously been warned about his communication with students.

F. MEMBER’S EVIDENCE

(1) Member’s Oral Evidence

22The Member provided some brief testimony about his experience as an OT and the importance of being accepting of all diversities and races. The Member has been a teacher for almost 35 years, and worked as an OT and long-term occasional teacher. He testified that his family and friends are all interracial and he is always respectful and accepting of all races, religions and sexes, to the point where he does not think to treat people differently based on their appearance.

23The Member testified that he takes his duties and responsibilities as a teacher seriously. He viewed himself as providing a service to students, just as he did to his clients when he was a waiter.

24His testimony appeared to be aimed at demonstrating to the Panel that a previous incident at the school with a dance class may have led the students to hold a grudge against him. The Member felt as though this incident had resulted in the students’ treatment of him on December 13, 2017.

25The Member testified about the events of Period 2 on December 13, 2017. The Member testified about Period 2’s general state of chaos, despite his best efforts to control the students and take attendance. The Member described the behaviour of a number of students as problematic enough to warrant removal from the classroom and his request for assistance from the administrative office. In particular, the Member recalled some students throwing paper into the garbage bin while shoving each other onto the tables, another student using a piece of sharp metal to try to open a locked cabinet, and a student banging a shopping cart into the cabinets at the back of the classroom. The Member was concerned for the students’ safety, and so called the office to seek assistance in removing certain students from the classroom. However, when the SBSM arrived to accompany these students to the office, multiple students left, ignoring the Member’s pleas to stay. As the class continued, more students left the Member’s class. The Member testified that he felt “down” and “beat” due to the events of Period 2.

26At the end of the Period 2 class, the Member testified that a Caucasian woman with long, light brown hair came in to lock the door to the classroom. She smiled at him and said, “I heard you had a bad class.” The Member told her about how upset he was to have so many students leave his class and asked why the office did not have discipline procedures. He recalled that he made the statement that the School should not be a [XXX] institute but should be a community centre instead, because the students’ behaviour was reminiscent of a community centre where there are no rules. The woman replied that if the Member thought that this class was bad, he should wait until after lunch, but assured him that she would be there with him to help him control that class. After locking the door to the classroom, she and the Member left.

27The Member testified that he went to the staff room, feeling beat, humiliated and dismissed by the students. He thought it necessary to put his foot down somehow to maintain students’ safety. In the staff room, the Member testified that he saw Ms. Nartey walk past him to her friends and leave the staff room. He denied that Ms. Nartey approached him in the staff room. This was contradictory to another statement that the Member made during the hearing, when he said that he had never seen Ms. Nartey before the hearing.

28The Member testified that the chaotic classroom environment continued during (what he testified was) Period 3, and that Student 1 and others were incredibly disruptive and had made many offensive and inappropriate comments to him. He denied making inappropriate comments himself, testifying instead that the students had abused him, and that he did not receive any support from the other staff members to help stop the students’ disruptive and disrespectful behaviour.

29The Member then spoke to Mr. Alvi about the events of the day in the classroom. He noted that Mr. Alvi put his hands behind his head, slouched and was not taking any notes. The Member testified that Mr. Alvi stated that the students in the Member’s Period 2 class told Mr. Alvi that they did not like the Member. The Member felt like Mr. Alvi did not listen or care about the Member’s experience of the day’s events.

30To describe the day’s events, the Member used an analogy stating that rubber bands can only take so much before they say, “Stop this thing. Enough is enough.” He felt angry at the way the school administration failed to support him during class and afterwards.

(2) Member’s Documentary Evidence

31The Member presented some documentary evidence in his defence, which the Panel did not find helpful. He presented a drawing of his classroom in Period 2 (Exhibit 13), the staff room (Exhibit 14B) and the main office (Exhibit 14C), to illustrate his testimony in response to the allegations.

G. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

32College Counsel requested that the Panel grant the withdrawal of the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing; namely, that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, on the basis that it would be duplicative for the Panel find that the Member breached the standards of the profession under both subsections 1(5) and 1(14).

33College Counsel further noted that there was no evidence presented to substantiate the allegation that the Member said, “I don’t want kids in the class like you,” to African Canadian students in his class, or words to that effect in the 2016-2017 academic year, as set out in paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) and asked the Panel not to make a finding with regard to this particular.

34College Counsel submitted that this case is about the Member’s failure to maintain order in his classroom, and not about whether the students in his class were well-behaved. The Member was responsible for creating a safe learning environment on December 13, 2017, but the Period 2 and Period 4 classrooms were out of control. College Counsel relied on the Member’s own admissions that the day went terribly, that the classroom was “total chaos” and that his voice was loud that day. College Counsel also relied on Mr. Alvi’s recollection that he had never seen so many students removed from the classroom as happened in Period 2 and Ms. Nartey’s recollection that she had never witnessed an altercation like the one in Period 4. The Member’s escalation of the situation with his inappropriate comments and behaviour, with no consideration of its impact on the students, was indicative of a person who failed to keep their emotions in check and that, combined with his failure to take responsibility for his actions afterwards, warrants a finding of professional misconduct.

35College Counsel took the position that it was not asking the Panel to make a finding on previous incidents (Exhibit 16) and that the Panel should limit its findings to the particulars alleged in the Notice of Hearing. However, College Counsel argued that the prior incidents offer important context because they show that the Member had received previous warnings about this kind of problematic behaviour and yet repeated it here.

36College Counsel submitted that the Panel had received sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations that the Member breached subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and urged the Panel to make findings of professional misconduct accordingly.

H. SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER

37The Member did not contest the College’s request to withdraw allegation (a) of the Notice of Hearing and did not object to the College’s request for the Panel to not make a finding with regard to the particular alleged in paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing.

38The Member contested many of the factual allegations and denied breaching his professional and ethical obligations as outlined in the Act and Ontario Regulation 437/97.

39The Member acknowledged that he may have failed in some way. He admitted that he should have called Mr. Alvi to take over the class and that he needed help that day. However, the Member maintained that he asked for help, but no one showed up to help him.

I. DECISION ON FINDING

(1) Onus and standard of proof

40The 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

41The Panel granted College Counsel’s request to withdraw the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and found that it was reasonable and in the public interest to not proceed with this allegation because it was duplicative of the subsection 1(14) allegation outlined in paragraph (d) of the Notice of Hearing.

42Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of the parties, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

J. REASONS FOR DECISION

43The 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 Panel first sets out its credibility findings, and then explains which factual allegations were either (a) not proven by the College, (b) admitted by the Member, or (c) proven by the College. The Panel then explains why the admitted and proven facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

(1) Credibility Findings

44The Panel found that the evidence of the College’s two witnesses (Ms. Nartey and Mr. Alvi) was credible and generally substantiated the material facts alleged in the Notice of Hearing. While there were minor inconsistencies between Ms. Nartey’s testimony and her written account made at the time of the incidents and entered as Exhibit 3, the Panel does not find that these inconsistences are material to its findings or diminished her credibility about the key facts at issue. The Panel found that Ms. Nartey was able to recall the events at the end of Period 2 and during Period 4 on December 13, 2017, in detail, and that her evidence was clear, cogent, convincing, and consistent. The Panel preferred Ms. Nartey’s evidence over the Member’s evidence where there was a conflict.

45For instance, the Panel accepts Ms. Nartey’s evidence that she was present during Period 4 over the Member’s unsubstantiated testimony that another CYW was assisting the Member in the Period 4 class on December 13, 2017. The Member’s position that another staff member had told him that she would assist him during Period 4 and was present during Period 4 was implausible and unreasonable, as the Panel accepted that Ms. Nartey was the only CYW employed at the School at all material times. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s suggestion that a witness came to the hearing to lie to the Panel was serious and that there was no evidence to support the Member’s allegation that Ms. Nartey was lying. The Panel gave more weight to Ms. Nartey and Mr. Alvi’s testimonies, as the Panel found Ms. Nartey and Mr. Alvi to be more credible and reliable than the Member. It is unreasonable to believe that Ms. Nartey fabricated her evidence and was prepared to be examined and cross-examined at a public discipline hearing about an event at which she was not even present. Based on the ample evidence presented to the Panel, the Panel finds that Ms. Nartey was present during the Period 4 class and that she provided a reliable firsthand account of the events. The Panel found her to be a credible witness as she had no interest in the outcome of the hearing that might have clouded her recollection.

46The Panel also found Mr. Alvi to be a credible witness. He was able to observe the events of Period 4 after being called down to the classroom by a SBSM. The Panel found that Mr. Alvi had a clear recollection of the events, provided reasonable evidence that was consistent throughout his testimony and was supported by his documentary evidence (Exhibit 6) and Ms. Nartey’s testimony. The Panel preferred Mr. Alvi’s evidence over the Member’s conflicting evidence. In addition to presenting reasonable, plausible testimony, the Panel finds that Mr. Alvi had no interest in the outcome of the hearing that might have clouded his recollection. The Panel also found Mr. Alvi’s documentary evidence to be reliable, as he created it shortly after the events of December 13, 2017 (Exhibit 6, Exhibit 8).

47The Panel had concerns about the reliability of the Member’s testimony, which was highly inconsistent. The Panel found the Member’s claim during cross-examination that the students were the only people yelling to be inconsistent with his previous statements that he had lost his temper like a volcano and “snapped.” The Panel did find that the Member’s timeline of events was plausible and reasonable, with the exception of his submission that Ms. Nartey was not present during the afternoon class and that the events occurred during Period 3 and not Period 4. However, the Panel found the Member’s testimony to be inconsistent with external evidence on more than one occasion, namely Ms. Nartey’s written statement (Exhibit 3), Mr. Alvi’s investigation notes (Exhibit 6), Student 1’s written statement (Exhibit 7), Mr. Alvi’s email to Mr. Venneri (Exhibit 9), Mr. Alvi’s meeting notes with the Member, and Ms. Nartey and Mr. Alvi’s testimonies.

48Overall, the Member was not a convincing witness. He often presented his evidence in a vague and rambling manner and failed to answer questions put to him. He had difficulty responding directly and succinctly to questions from counsel and the Panel.

(2) Factual Findings

(a) Unproven Facts

(i) In or about the academic year 2016-2017, the Member said “I don’t want kids in the class like you” to African Canadian students in his class, or words to that effect.

49The College did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that in or about the academic year 2016-2017, the Member said, “I don’t want kids in the class like you” to African Canadian students in his class, or words to that effect, as alleged at paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing. College Counsel submitted that they were not seeking a finding regarding this allegation, as there was no evidence presented to substantiate it. As such, the Panel finds that the College did not discharge its onus of proving this allegation on a balance of probabilities and makes no finding with respect to this allegation.

(ii) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member said, “look at you” while looking at Student 1 and/or her hijab, when asked why he wanted her to leave.

50The College did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about December 13, 2017, the Member said, “Look at you” while looking at Student 1 and/or her hijab, when asked why he wanted her to leave, as alleged at paragraph 5(b) of the Notice of Hearing. The College did not tender any evidence to substantiate this allegation. Ms. Nartey and Mr. Alvi did not speak about it during their respective testimonies at the hearing nor did they detail it in their written accounts (Exhibit 3, 6). In Mr. Alvi’s meeting with the Member, Mr. Alvi asked whether the Member commented, “Look at you,” to [XXX]students and then proceeded to look at them up and down, and the Member denied it. Mr. Alvi did not pursue this line of questioning at the meeting and College Counsel did not put it to the Member during his cross-examination. The only evidence relevant to this allegation was Student 1’s written account (Exhibit 7), but as stated above, the Panel does not place significant weight on this document as Student 1 did not testify and the Member was not asked about this allegation during the hearing. As such, the Panel finds that the College did not discharge its onus of proving this allegation on a balance of probabilities and makes no finding with respect to this allegation.

(iii) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member referred to a student as the “Queen of trouble,” or words to that effect.

51The College did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member referred to a student as the “Queen of trouble,” or words to that effect, as alleged at paragraph 6(b) of the Notice of Hearing. The only evidence that the College tendered to substantiate this allegation was an anonymous student’s statement to Mr. Alvi (Exhibit 7), which the Panel does not find persuasive. Neither Ms. Nartey nor Mr. Alvi provided any evidence with respect to this allegation. The Member denied making such a statement both in his meeting with Mr. Alvi (Exhibit 10) and during the hearing. As such, the Panel finds that the College did not discharge its onus of proving this allegation on a balance of probabilities and makes no finding with respect to this allegation.

(iv) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member said, “I feel sorry for your mother,” or words to that effect to students.

52The College did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said, “I feel sorry for your mother” or words to that effect to students, as alleged at paragraph 6(c) of the Notice of Hearing. The only evidence the College presented to the Panel was Mr. Alvi’s investigation notes, which included statements from people who were neither under oath nor put forward as witnesses. Neither Ms. Nartey nor Mr. Alvi testified directly about this allegation. The Member denied making such a statement in both his meeting with Mr. Alvi on January 23, 2018 (Exhibit 10) and during the hearing. During cross-examination, the Member questioned why he would say that about students’ parents. As such, the Panel finds that the College did not discharge its onus of proving this allegation on a balance of probabilities and makes no finding with respect to this allegation.

(v) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member said to a student, “The reason you talk so much is because you have a hearing defect,” or words to that effect.

53The College did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said to a student, “The reason you talk so much is because you have a hearing defect,” or words to that effect, as alleged in paragraph 6(d) of the Notice of Hearing. The College did not present any convincing evidence to prove this allegation, as none of its witnesses testified about this allegation and the anonymous student who provided a written account to Mr. Alvi did not make such a statement under oath and was not presented for cross-examination (Exhibit 7). The Member denied making such a statement to Mr. Alvi on January 23, 2018 (Exhibit 10) and during his cross-examination at the hearing. The Member was adamant that he would not use this kind of language to infer that a person’s inability to hear was a defect. As such, the Panel finds that the College did not discharge its onus of proving this allegation on a balance of probabilities and makes no finding with respect to this allegation.

(vi) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member said to students “the juice got into your head, you’re crazy”, or words to that effect.

54The College did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said to students, “the juice got into your head, you’re crazy” or words to that effect, as alleged at paragraph 6(f) of the Notice of Hearing. The College did not present any evidence to substantiate this allegation, apart from an anonymous student’s account in Mr. Alvi’s investigation notes (Exhibit 6), on which the Panel does not place any significant weight. The anonymous statement was not made under oath, the student was not presented for cross-examination and, during the Member’s meeting with Mr. Alvi (Exhibit 10) and during this hearing, the Member denied making these comments to students. The Member explained that he would never use such language because he does not believe juice makes one crazy, and he would never say such things to anyone. As such, the Panel finds that the College did not discharge its onus of proving this allegation on a balance of probabilities and makes no finding with respect to this allegation.

(vii) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member said to students, “If you were my child, you would not be like this” or words to that effect.

55The College has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said to students, “If you were my child, you would not be like this”, or words to that effect, as alleged at paragraph 6(g) of the Notice of Hearing. The College did not adduce any persuasive evidence to substantiate this allegation, besides an anonymous student’s account to Mr. Alvi, on which the Panel does not place any significant weight because it was not made under oath nor was its writer presented for cross-examination. Moreover, when asked whether he made this comment to students, the Member unequivocally denied it to Mr. Alvi on January 23, 2018 (Exhibit 10) and during his testimony at the hearing. The Member explained that he would never make such a comment because he would never use that language and it would create more animosity with students. The Panel does not find that the College discharged its onus of proving this allegation on a balance of probabilities and makes no finding with respect to this allegation.

(viii) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member said to students, “If you used your ears more than your mouth, you would be more successful”, or words to that effect.

56The Panel does not find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said to students, “If you used your ears more than your mouth, you would be more successful”, or words to that effect, as alleged at paragraph 6(h) of the Notice of Hearing. The College did not present any persuasive evidence to support this allegation, and this was not one of the allegations put to the Member by Mr. Alvi on January 23, 2018. The Member was asked whether he made this statement during the hearing. Instead of explicitly denying this allegation, the Member answered that this statement was derived from philosophers in Greece, meaning that if one listens more, one has a better chance at success. He implied that this statement is educational. The Member did not answer whether he directed this alleged statement at students on December 13, 2017. Although the Member’s responses to this line of questioning were somewhat evasive, the Panel does not find that that the College presented sufficient evidence to prove this this allegation on a balance of probabilities, and therefore did not meet its burden of proof with respect to this allegation.

(ix) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member called students a “clown,” or words to that effect.

57The College has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member called students a “clown,” or words to that effect, on December 13, 2017, as alleged at paragraph 6(i) of the Notice of Hearing. None of the College’s witnesses testified about this allegation and Mr. Alvi did not ask the Member about it at their meeting on January 23, 2018 (Exhibit 10). The Member denied calling students “clowns” or words to that effect during his testimony. As such, the Panel finds that the College did not discharge its onus of proving this allegation on a balance of probabilities and makes no finding with respect to this allegation.

(x) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member communicated his name to students in an aggressive manner.

58The College has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member communicated his name aggressively to students, on December 13, 2017, as alleged at paragraph 6(k) of the Notice of Hearing. None of the College’s witnesses testified about this allegation nor did the College did not present any compelling evidence about it. The only evidence that the College presented to substantiate this allegation were written accounts to Mr. Alvi (Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7), which were neither made under oath nor were their writers presented for cross-examination. The Member did not respond to this allegation either, as it was not put to him by Mr. Alvi in their meeting on January 23, 2018, or by College Counsel during the Member’s cross-examination at this hearing. As such, the Panel finds that the College did not discharge its onus of proving this allegation and makes no finding with respect to this allegation.

(b) Admitted Facts

(i) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member told Student 1 that he wanted her out of the class.

59The Panel finds that the Member told Student 1 that he wanted her out of the Period 4 class on December 13, 2017, as alleged in paragraph 5(a) of the Notice of Hearing. The Panel bases its finding on the Member’s own admission during his testimony as well as Ms. Nartey’s evidence. According to both the Member and Ms. Nartey, the Member said this to Student 1 during their argument and in the context of the Member seeking to send Student 1 to the office.

(ii) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member told Student 1 that she was “racist.”

60The Panel finds that the Member told Student 1 that she was “racist” during Period 4, on December 13, 2017, as alleged in paragraph 5(d) of the Notice of Hearing. The Member admitted that he called Student 1 “racist,” both during his testimony and to Mr. Alvi, according to Mr. Alvi’s meeting notes with the Member (Exhibit 10). The Member explained that he called Student 1 “racist” after she had been yelling at him and accusing him of being racist. When cross-examined, the Member admitted that he “snapped” during his confrontation with Student 1 and referred to her as a racist. At the hearing, when presented with Mr. Alvi’s meeting notes from the meeting with him on January 23, 2018 which showed the Member describing himself as a volcano that erupted, the Member implied that he had enough of the 55 minutes of the students’ yelling, expressed dissatisfaction at the School’s delay in removing him from the classroom, and claimed that if Mr. Alvi did not want him to say anything to Student 1, Mr. Alvi should have taken him out of the classroom earlier and not after 55 minutes.

61In addition, Ms. Nartey and Mr. Alvi both testified that they heard the Member call Student 1 racist and included this in their respective written statements (Exhibit 3, Exhibit 6).

62The Panel finds that the discrepancies about whether the Member called Student 1 “a racist,” as opposed to “the racist” and at what particular point during Period 4 the Member made such a comment (i.e., Ms. Nartey wrote that the Member called Student 1 “racist” before Mr. Alvi arrived, whereas Mr. Alvi testified that he witnessed the Member making this comment), are minor and do not impact the Panel’s finding.

(iii) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member required the Principal to intervene with respect to his interactions with a student or students.

63The Panel finds that on December 13, 2017, the Member required the Principal to intervene with respect to his interactions with a student or students, particularly during Period 4, as alleged at paragraph 7(c) of the Notice of Hearing. Regardless of whether the Member asked Mr. Alvi to come to Period 4 or whether Ms. Nartey took it upon herself to call for assistance from the administrative office, it is beyond dispute, and indeed admitted by the Member, that assistance from Mr. Alvi was sought and warranted, in response to the increasingly escalating situation between the Member and the students in his Period 4 class.

(iv) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member told Student 1 words to the effect of “for a very small girl, you have a big mouth.”

64The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told Student 1 that “for a very small girl, you have a big mouth,” or words to that effect. The Panel relies on the Member’s own admission during cross-examination that he said in front of the class that for a young girl, Student 1 was “mouthy”. The Member explained at the hearing that he meant to convey that for a young student, Student 1 was saying words that he thought should not be part of a young student’s vocabulary, including “bastard,” “twerp,” “crazy,” and “stupid.” Mr. Alvi’s evidence was that the Member admitted the same to him on January 23, 2018 (Exhibit 10). Later in re-direct, the Member backtracked on his earlier admission and suggested that he never made this comment in the classroom and recalled that he said it in Mr. Alvi’s office. The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Member’s admission during cross-examination was true and places more weight on his answer in cross-examination over his retracted answer in re-direct.

(c) Contested Facts

(i) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member referred to a student as the “Queen of Sheba,” or words to that effect.

65The Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that on December 13, 2017, the Member referred to a student as the “Queen of Sheba”, as alleged at paragraph 6(a) of the Notice of Hearing. Neither Ms. Nartey nor Mr. Alvi provided direct testimony on this. The Panel relied on the Member’s own statements at the meeting with Mr. Alvi (Exhibit 10) and at the hearing. On January 23, 2018, the Member met with Mr. Alvi. After discussing the events of Period 2 on December 13, 2017, Mr. Alvi asked whether the Member referred to someone as the “Queen of Sheba,” to which Member answered that he “may” have done so and explained that he meant it to mean, “Princess.” Mr. Alvi did not pursue this line of questioning during the meeting, but the Panel found the Member’s general admission that he uses this phrase makes it likely that he said it on December 13, 2017.

66The Member testified at the hearing that he will refer to someone as the “Queen of Sheba” when he is happy with a person, as if complimenting them and not out of animosity. The Member explained that he would also use this language when, for example, students have been excused to go to the washroom and do not return to class within a reasonable time or when a female student is not paying attention in class, and uses it to reference a “rich, successful business lady” or a “princess.” There was no evidence that the Member made this comment to a student who was at the washroom for too long or not paying attention in class on December 13, 2017. However, the Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the Member made this comment to a student on December 13, 2017, based on his admission to Mr. Alvi during their meeting, that he generally calls students the “Queen of Sheba” in certain situations and given that he did not explicitly deny using this language when he was questioned about it during the hearing.

(ii) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member said to students, “This school should be a community centre/school, not a [XXX] school” and/or “[XXX] should be called [XXX] Community School and not [XXX],” or words to that effect.

67The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on December 13, 2017, the Member said to students that the School should be a community centre, or words to that effect, as alleged at paragraph 6(e) of the Notice of Hearing. The College’s evidence had some discrepancies, but the Panel finds these discrepancies insignificant overall. Ms. Nartey testified that the Member made this comment to students, during class. However, her written account states only that the Member made this comment to her in private, before the afternoon classes had started, and did not make any mention of the Member making such a comment to students during Period 4 (Exhibit 3). Mr. Alvi testified that the Member made this comment to him, in private, after he had escorted the Member out of the Period 4 classroom. According to Mr. Alvi’s meeting notes with the Member, Mr. Alvi said that multiple people reported that the Member had made this statement, which the Member admitted doing “out of frustration” (Exhibit 10). Mr. Alvi did not specify whether the multiple reporters had been students. When testifying at the hearing, the Member admitted that he did make a statement to Mr. Alvi because he was frustrated and intended it to criticize the students’ behaviour, since the students were not acting the way one would expect them to at school. College Counsel did not ask the Member whether he made this statement to students. The evidence presented to the Panel varies on whether the Member directed this comment to students, as alleged, or to Mr. Alvi. A thorough review of the evidence and testimony does not lead to the absolute conclusion that the Member made this comment to students directly, as the only evidence to support this allegation was Mr. Alvi’s notes that multiple “people” reported it to him, and Ms. Nartey’s testimony, which was different from her written account. However, the Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member did make such a statement to students directly. The Panel relies on the totality of the evidence to make this finding.

(iii) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member spoke inappropriately and/or disrespectfully to students.

68The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on December 13, 2017, the Member spoke inappropriately and/or disrespectfully to students, as alleged at paragraph 6(j) of the Notice of Hearing. The Member’s comments to Student 1 and other students were both inappropriate and disrespectful to the students and their School. His comments were offensive and unsuitable for the classroom, especially between the Member, as a teacher, and students who are young and vulnerable. He called Student 1 “racist,” and “mouthy,” or words to that effect. In addition, he called a student “Queen of Sheba” and made disparaging comments about the School to the students. The Member made these comments in the course of teaching the students and the Panel finds that the comments were inappropriate, as members of the teaching profession are entrusted with creating a safe and supportive learning environment for students, which the Member failed to do by making these comments. The Panel also accepts the evidence of Ms. Nartey and Mr. Alvi who found the comments to be inappropriate.

(iv) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member threw chalk in the classroom.

69The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on December 13, 2017, the Member threw chalk in the classroom, as alleged at paragraph 7(a) of the Notice of Hearing. This allegation is with respect to the Member’s conduct in Period 4, which quickly became chaotic as the class began. The Member testified that the hostile relations with the students escalated from when he began to welcome students to the class and put his belongings on the teacher’s desk. Although Ms. Nartey did not include this detail in her written account (Exhibit 3), she testified at the hearing that she observed the Member throwing the chalk on the teacher’s desk as if frustrated, which shocked students, and Ms. Nartey had to tell them to calm down.

70The Member denied throwing chalk, stating that the classroom was the wrong place to throw chalk. He explained that as a joke or a trick, he sometimes throws and spins the chalk on the edge of the blackboard after writing his name there, to break the ice with students. The Member denied writing his name on the board in Period 4 and explained that he would not have thrown chalk during Period 4, as the class was already confrontational and throwing chalk in that circumstance could have made things worse or been taken the wrong way.

71The Panel prefers Ms. Nartey’s testimony because the Panel found her to be a more credible and reliable witness than the Member. It was also more plausible that the Member acted in such a way out of frustration, especially given that Period 2 was upsetting to the Member and Period 4 started off with a confrontation between Student 1 and the Member, who was having trouble controlling the class.

(v) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member failed to adequately control the class.

72The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member failed to adequately control both the Period 2 and the Period 4 classes, on December 13, 2017, as alleged at paragraph 7(b) of the Notice of Hearing. With regard to Period 2, the Member failed to adequately control the class when the majority of the students left the classroom. Prior to this, the Member testified that although he welcomed students to the class, many of them failed to sit in their seats and instead sat on desks and talked and laughed amongst themselves and did not pay attention to him. Their behaviour deteriorated thereafter with students being noisy, rowdy and shoving each other, while throwing paper into the garbage bin. This continued for approximately 20 minutes. The Member warned one of the students that if the students continued to throw paper, the Member would call the office. The student did not stop, and the Member called the office for assistance.

73A SBSM arrived in response to his call for assistance but did not offer help and appeared irritated to the Member. The students then started to argue with the SBSM and curse at the Member, asking who the Member thinks he is and calling the Member stupid. The Member attempted to send two students to the office with the SBSM, but three other students were adamant that they wanted to leave the classroom too. The Member testified that he told the SBSM to not take all of the students, but the SBSM left with the five students.

74Shortly afterwards, another student standing at the back also left the classroom. The Member had never been in this situation before and so endeavoured again to take attendance. As he was doing so, the Member heard a loud noise in the classroom and on investigation, he noticed a student smacking a shopping cart into the walls. A student followed him to the back of the classroom. He asked both students to go back to their seats. Only one did so. He then instructed the other student to go to the office. The Member testified that he felt “so down” and “beat” while begging the student to stop disturbing the class. Another student said to him, “Hey, don’t talk to my friend that way.” The Member explained that he was telling her friend to go to the office for causing problems.

75The Member called the office for assistance a second time. When the SBSM arrived, he was accompanied by a student who was drinking juice from a carton. That student told his classmates, “Look what they’re giving me in the other room. You should come, we’re having fun,” or something to that effect. The SBSM then took both students to the office. The Member was shocked and begged the second student to stay, thinking that he had already lost eight students, but she did not listen and left the classroom.

76The Member further testified that a few minutes later, more students left the Period 2 class when a young woman walked into the classroom and asked the students, “Who wants to join me in the other class with your other friends?” or something to that effect. The Member asked the woman who she was and why she was taking away students who were doing work, but the woman did not introduce herself and stated that the students could do better work in another room with their classmates. More students left the room which stunned the Member.

77Although Mr. Alvi was not directly involved with the events of Period 2, he testified that he understood the majority of the Period 2 students left the classroom and were brought to a conference room for the remainder of the period. Mr. Alvi indicated that the high number of students who left was unusual. He had never seen this before. The Member admitted that he struggled to keep students in the class and did not know what to say or do.

78The Member also failed to adequately control the Period 4 class. At the beginning of the class, a female student who appeared angry pointed her finger in his face and called him a “piece of shit” and then stared at him for 10-15 seconds. The Member was afraid that she was going to hit him. He was unsure if she was a student in the Period 4 class. The Member instructed the student to either leave the classroom if she did not belong in the class, or to take a seat. The student pointed her finger at the Member and screamed, “When did you brush your mouth? Your breath smells like shit.” The Member testified that those words were ingrained in his memory because he was so stunned that a young student would talk to a teacher this way. The student then left the classroom but kept on yelling, “You smell like shit,” to the Member.

79As the student continued to yell, the Member then noticed a group of six girls coming towards the classroom. He recalled Student 1 looking directly at him and saying, “You are the racist!” She kept accusing him of being a racist and a bastard. Student 1 then turned to her friends and said, “The guy is a bastard,” and called the Member “stupid,” “crazy,” “twerp,” “racist,” and a “goof.” The Member felt as though these insults came at him “like bullets”. The Member wanted to close his eyes and not talk to anyone. He testified that he looked down and away, and gave Student 1 and her friends the room to walk past him into the classroom.

80When the second school bell rang, the Member testified that neither Ms. Nartey nor a SBSM were present to assist him with the class. He recalled Student 1 and her friends repeated the same five or six insults, with no chance for him to interrupt them. The Member asked the students to stop making these remarks so he could take attendance, but they continued. It was in or around this point that another teacher or worker came into the classroom. The Member explained to this individual that he was trying to take attendance, but could not because of the students’ loud shouting. The individual who came into the class suggested that she could take attendance instead, but did not do anything to stop the students’ comments. The Member begged this person to get involved, but she refused, saying that she was busy taking attendance.

81The Member testified that at this point he spoke directly to Student 1 and asked her what he had done to warrant this behaviour from her. The Member told Student 1 that if she did not stop, he would call the office, but she refused and instead, increased her volume. The Member then asked the other staff member to tell Student 1 to go to the office. The other staff member asked the students to stop making comments and told Student 1 to go to the office. However, Student 1 and her friends started yelling even louder, like “bigger bullets.”

82The Member testified that the SBSM then arrived at the classroom. The Member requested that the Vice-Principal or Principal be called down to assist as it did not appear to him that the SBSM would do anything. The Member indicated that he sought the Vice-Principal or Principal’s attendance because he found that the SBSMs were not supportive, and he just wanted someone to speak to the students. The Member did not say anything to the SBSM or to the students, and waited for Mr. Alvi to arrive.

83Mr. Alvi came to the classroom and described the atmosphere as chaotic. The group of students were still yelling. The Member recalled that Mr. Alvi asked him why he had been called. At this point, the Member, exhausted from 50-55 minutes of being called racist described himself as “erupting”, and said to the student, “I am not racist, you are the racist.” The Member recalled that Mr. Alvi then stopped him, told him that he could not talk like this, and asked him to step outside the classroom. The Member offered to explain himself, but Mr. Alvi refused to listen. The Member explained that he still had Period 4 to teach, but Mr. Alvi assured him that it was okay, and that the Member would still get paid.

84Ms. Nartey also testified that the Member’s negative engagement with the students escalated the situation, to the point where she had to intervene.

85From the testimony of the Member, Mr. Alvi and Ms. Nartey, it is evident to the Panel that both the Period 2 and the Period 4 classes were chaotic, and the Member had failed to adequately control both classes.

(vi) On or about December 13, 2017, the Member failed to maintain an appropriate learning environment in the classroom.

86The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member failed to maintain an appropriate learning environment in the classroom, on December 13, 2017, as alleged at paragraph 7(d) of the Notice of Hearing. Firstly, the Member’s failure to control the class during Period 2 resulted in the majority of students leaving the classroom, which deprived them of a learning environment for Period 2. With regard to Period 4, the Member’s own actions in escalating the confrontation with students and his failure to control the class created a toxic environment where students could not have been reasonably expected to learn from their teacher.

(3) Legal Conclusions

87The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct set out above gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member:

(a) abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(b) abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(c) failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(d) failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(e) 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); and

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

(a) The Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7)

88The Panel finds that the Member abused students verbally. The Member made comments to Student 1, calling her racist and “mouthy,” or words to that effect. The Panel finds these comments verbally abusive because they are reasonably regarded as unwelcome, especially to be called such names in front of a student’s peers. The Panel also considers the Member to have been verbally abusive particularly with regard to the context under which his behaviour arose. The Member had been engaged in a confrontational, aggressive exchange with Student 1 when he called her “racist,” and “mouthy.” The Member’s comments were personal and directed at Student 1. On its own, these comments may not rise to the level of verbal abuse but in the context of escalating tension and hostility between the Member and Student 1, these comments could reasonably be viewed as abusive, especially in the eyes of Student 1 and the students witnessing such an exchange.

89In addition, the Panel finds that the Member’s “Queen of Sheba” comment is also verbally abusive because of its racial undertones and the context under which it occurred, namely that the Member made the comment during Period 2 or Period 4 when he was notably frustrated. The Panel is mindful of the Member’s stated intention to be complimentary but finds that his intention is irrelevant and outweighed by its negative impact on students upon hearing such a comment which could be related to race.

90Although the Panel found that the Member also told Student 1 that he wanted her out of the class, the Panel does not find that particular comment to be verbally abusive. The Panel recognizes that it is reasonable for members to remove students who they may consider to be disruptive from the classroom. It is not verbally abusive to advise students as such, when done so in a respectful manner. Although the Panel found that the Member did make this statement, the Panel did not find that he did so in a disrespectful manner.

(b) The Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2)

91The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused students, by calling Student 1 “racist” and “mouthy,” by referring to a student as the “Queen of Sheba,” and by saying that the School should be a community centre. Firstly, the Panel recognizes that calling a student “racist” is a significant attack on the way someone views and treats others and is reasonably viewed as psychologically or emotionally abusive. The impact of the Member’s comment on Student 1 would reasonably have a deeply personal effect on her and her reputation, especially as it was made in front of her peers by a teacher who holds a position of trust and authority. The Panel views the Member’s comment as harmful to students who are still developing and learning about their place in society. Likewise, calling Student 1 “mouthy” is psychologically or emotionally abusive, as the Member singled her out and drew negative attention towards her in front of her peers. The Panel finds the gendered nature of the Member’s comment, “mouthy,” particularly concerning as it was directed towards a female student. Insulting a young female student and telling her that she is “mouthy” in a negative, derogatory manner can have a negative impact on her development and can be debilitating. The Member could have offered more constructive direction instead, but chose to insult Student 1 which would have likely made her feel inferior and wrong for speaking her mind. Although the Panel did not hear directly from Student 1, the Panel finds it reasonable to believe that hearing such comments from a teacher who holds a position of authority would be psychologically and emotionally damaging.

92In addition, the Panel finds that the Member’s comment calling a student the “Queen of Sheba” is also psychologically or emotionally abusive, given its racial undertones. Regardless of the Member’s intent behind his comment, it is psychologically or emotionally abusive to hear such a comment with racial undertones from a teacher, who is expected to treat students equitably and with respect.

93Lastly, the Panel finds that the Member’s comment calling the School a community centre is also psychologically or emotionally abusive. Although the Panel did not hear directly from students, the Panel finds it reasonable to believe that they were negatively impacted by such a comment. Ms. Nartey testified that she witnessed students becoming agitated and angry hearing this comment from the Member, as it was insulting to them and their school. The Member admitted to making such a comment but explained that he meant that the students’ behaviour was more suited to a community centre and not a school. Regardless of the Member’s justification or his intentions, it was inappropriate for him to make such a statement. It is psychologically or emotionally abusive for students to hear a teacher in a position of authority make a derogatory statement about the students and their school. It is reasonable to believe that such a comment would negatively impact students’ self-esteem and their pride in being students in the School.

(c) The Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14)

94The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the ethical standards outlined in (then) section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). In particular, the Member breached the ethical standards of Respect, Care, Trust and Integrity. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour students’ dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development and model respect for cultural values. The Member failed to abide by this ethical standard when he made inappropriate and disrespectful comments to the students. When he called Student 1 “racist” and “mouthy,” or words to that effect, he did not honour her dignity. His comment referring to a student as the “Queen of Sheba” was also disrespectful and did not model respect for cultural values. The Member’s comments directed to students about their School were also disrespectful to their dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development, as it reflected badly on them and their school.

95The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for developing students’ potential. The Member failed to consider students’ dignity and emotional wellness when he made offensive comments about them and the School. The Member was more concerned with his own feelings than with how his comments would be disrespectful to others. He failed to be compassionate and demonstrate insight for students’ potential and well-being. His failure to control the class resulted in students in both Period 2 and Period 4 not receiving their lessons for the day.

96The ethical standard of “Trust” requires members to embody fairness, openness and honesty. The Member’s antagonistic and tense relationship with students, particularly those in Period 4, did not exemplify the trust expected of teachers. As a result of the Member’s misconduct, he eroded the trust that students place in teachers to treat them fairly and with respect.

97The ethical standard of “Integrity” requires members to exemplify honesty, reliability and moral action. The Member failed to do so when he directed disrespectful comments towards students. His comments and conduct did not demonstrate integrity or moral virtues. He perpetuated negative stereotypes about students, their School and insulted them.

98The Member submitted that he was familiar with the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession, cares about students and wants them to succeed. He said that he prioritizes their schooling and safety and has always been committed to their learning. However, the Member argued that the School set him up to fail by placing him in a classroom where half of the students required special attention. Regardless of the students’ actions, the Panel finds that the Member ought to have responded differently, keeping in mind his ethical obligations to students, their learning and the community. Members of the teaching profession are expected to create collaborative learning communities and to deal effectively with students who may be difficult, because they are trained to do so.

99The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct was so notorious that it does not require expert evidence to find as such, given the serious nature of the Member’s inappropriate and culturally insensitive comments, and the total chaos that existed in his classroom.⁴ It is clear to the Panel that the Member’s behaviour and language towards students were inappropriate, disrespectful and demeaning to students. The Panel does not require expert evidence to come to this conclusion.

(d) The Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15)

100The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. The Member’s conduct demonstrated a complete disregard for his duties, including the duty to exemplify positive moral virtues and to be a good role model. By engaging negatively with students, calling them names and insulting their school, the Member behaved disloyally to the students and the school community. He demonstrated a concerning lack of professional judgment by engaging in hostile communications with Student 1 and making a comment with racial undertones. The Member’s behaviour and comments were indicative of his failure to be a role model and to set a positive example for students. His actions towards Student 1 and other students were unjust and not reflective of a teacher who abides by their duties as prescribed in the legislation.

(e) 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)

101The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The public and the teaching profession do not tolerate the insulting of students and disrespectful behaviour that the Member exhibited on December 13, 2017. Through his conduct, the Member violated the trust that the public and parents place in teachers. When students attend class, they expect that they will be treated with respect and learn in a supportive, collaborative learning environment. The Member’s breach of this trust was disappointing. Instead of teaching students, he failed to adequately control the class and maintain an appropriate learning environment in Period 2 and Period 4, and engaged in a negative confrontation with students, including Student 1 in particular, during Period 4. He failed to maintain professional boundaries with students and escalated a hostile situation with his comments and actions, which demonstrates a lack of professional judgment. He ought to have remained professional and modeled appropriate conflict resolution, not engage negatively with the students.

102The Panel notes that it does not consider the Member’s actions in calling Mr. Alvi for assistance to be misconduct or unprofessional. It recognizes that when members need assistance, they are expected to ask for help. However, the Panel’s focus is centred around the Member’s behaviour that led to the point of requiring Mr. Alvi’s intervention.

(f) The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)

103The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. His disrespectful comments towards students and the School, and his failure to control the class and provide an appropriate learning environment undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers. When members of the profession insult students and make derogatory comments with racial undertones to students, it reflects poorly on the reputation of the profession as a whole and casts doubt in teachers’ ability to foster respect in the classroom.

104The Tribunals’ Office will schedule a subsequent hearing date for the penalty portion of this hearing.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2As of January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws was re-numbered as section 26. At the time of the alleged conduct, the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession were set out at section 32 of the by-laws.
3. 3Throughout the hearing, it became clear that the Member recalled the afternoon’s events as taking place in Period 3, while others (Ms. Nartey and Mr. Alvi) testified that the events occurred in Period 4. The Panel does not find that this discrepancy is material to its understanding of the facts, and it is not part of the case against the Member. For clarity and to reduce confusion in these Reasons, the Panel has herein referred to the period in question as Period 4.
4. 4See Novick v Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 at paragraph 71.