Ontario College of Teachers v. Thanase, 2023 ONOCT 49

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Thanase 2023 ONOCT 49

Date: 2023-06-26

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

Ginette Carmen Thanase, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

GINETTE CARMEN THANASE (REGISTRATION #417952)

PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Scott Barker, OCT Élaine Legault

HEARD: June 15, 2023

COUNSEL: Émilie Bruneau, for the Ontario College of Teachers Paulette Thanase, for Ginette Carmen Thanase 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.

This matter was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on June 15, 2023, pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

Ginette Carmen Thanase (the “Member”) was in attendance at the hearing, as was Paulette Thanase who identified herself as the Member’s representative (hereinafter, “the Member’s Representative”). The Member’s Representative is not a lawyer. 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

The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act (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

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated May 11, 2020 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Ginette Carmen Thanase is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

b) she signed or issued, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(12)²;

c) she falsified a record relating to the member’s professional responsibilities, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(13)³;

d) she 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)⁴;

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTs[^5]

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

1. Ginette Carmen Thanase is a member of the College. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire catholique Providence (the “Board”). During the 2013-2014 academic year, the Member was teaching at École [XXX] in Tecumseh, Ontario. In the 2014-2015 academic year, the Member was teaching at École [XXX] in Windsor, Ontario.

2013-2014 academic year

3. The Member had been absent from work for a period of time on sick leave. On or about November 11, 2013, the Member returned to work and was assigned to a position as a computer class teacher.

4. During the 2013-2014 academic year, Students 1, 2 and 3 were all Grade [XXX] students in a [XXX] class taught by the Member’s colleague. In November 2013, the colleague asked the Member to assist the students with their research for a [XXX] project.

5. The Member’s colleague had assigned the Grade [XXX] class a [XXX] project on human body systems. She had provided the students with a list of websites they could visit while using the computers to research the project. The project followed the Ontario curriculum and was designed to discuss the proper function of human body systems.

6. On or about November 28, 2013, the Member allegedly brought a urinary catheter from a hospital into her colleague’s classroom. She allegedly showed Students 1, 2 and 3 a diagram of a vulva that visually explained how to insert the urinary catheter. The Member then gave the catheter and a printed diagram to Students 1, 2 and 3.

7. On or about November 28, 2013, the Member’s colleague realized that Students 1, 2 and 3 had a urinary catheter and a printed diagram that visually explained how to insert it in their possession in her classroom. The colleague confiscated the catheter and the diagram.

8. As a result of the November 28, 2013, incident, the Member received a disciplinary letter and a two-day suspension without pay. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the disciplinary letter dated May 20, 2014.

2014-2015 academic year

9. During the period between October 2014 and January 2015, on several occasions, the Member reported that she was absent on sick leave when in fact, she was in court for personal reasons. This is an abuse of the Board’s sick leave plan.

Previous Absences

10. On September 26, 2007, the Member submitted a request for paid leave to appear as a party in legal proceedings. The Board responded that the leave would be granted, but without pay, as per the collective agreement covering leave for legal obligations. As a result of this exchange, the Member was familiar with the procedure for taking a leave in connection to a personal court matter. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the request for leave dated September 26, 2007.

Absences in October and November 2014

11. On or about October 3 and 10, 2014 and November 7, 2014, the Member received sick leave pay while appearing as a party in court on those days for legal proceedings regarding [XXX]. The Member applied for paid sick leave even though she was not entitled to be paid for this type of activity under the collective agreement.

Absences in December 2014

12. The Member had been advised by the court since at least September 30, 2014, that she was to appear as a party the week of December 1, 2014, for the continuation of the case regarding [XXX].

13. On or about November 26, 2014, the Member submitted a request for unpaid leave for December 1, since she had to appear in court for legal proceedings related to [XXX]. In her request, the Member did not ask for any other days of unpaid leave. On or about November 27, 2014, the Board approved the Member’s request for unpaid leave. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the request for leave dated November 26, 2014.

14. The Member received pay for the remainder of the week of December 1, 2014, by claiming that her absence requests were illness-related, rather than requesting five days of unpaid leave to appear in court. Her claims were false.

15. On or about December 1, 2014, the Member informed her principal in writing that she would also be absent on December 2, 2014.

16. On or about December 2, 2014, the Member informed her principal in writing that she would be absent for the remainder of the week. She sent a photo of a medical note from Windsor Regional Hospital indicating that she had been seen by the hospital’s emergency department. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is the e-mail dated December 2, 2014, and the medical note.

17. The Member did not submit a medical note for December 5, 2014. She had previously been granted permission, as an accommodation, to be absent on Fridays with pay for medical treatments.

18. On or about December 1 to 5, 2014, the Member was required to appear as a party in court regarding [XXX]. She allegedly made false written statements to her Board to obtain paid sick leave for December 2, 3, 4 and 5, 2014, when she was not entitled under the collective agreement to be paid for the activities in which she partook.

Absences in January 2015

19. The Member had been informed by the court since at least December 4, 2014, that she was scheduled to appear as a party the week of January 12, 2015, in the case regarding [XXX].

20. On or about January 11, 2015, the Member informed her principal in writing that she was ill. She sent a photo of a medical note notifying them that she had an appointment for kidney stones. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is the e-mail dated January 11, 2015, and the medical note.

21. Rather than requesting five days of unpaid leave, the Member obtained paid leave for the week of January 12, 2015, by stating that her absences were illness-related, and requesting them one day at a time.

22. On or about January 13, 2015, the Member wrote to her principal requesting leave for the remainder of the week and sent a photo of a second medical note, even though she was scheduled to appear in court that week. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the e-mail dated January 13, 2015, and of the medical note.

23. From January 12 to 16, 2015, the Member had to appear as a party in court regarding [XXX]. She made false statements to her Board and was granted paid sick leave for January 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 2015, when she was not entitled under the collective agreement to be paid for the activities in which she partook.

Dismissal

24. On March 24, 2015, the Board notified the Member that a recommendation for dismissal would be made to the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated March 24, 2015.

25. On April 13, 2015, the Board filed a recommendation for dismissal. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I” is s copy of the recommendation for dismissal dated April 13, 2015.

26. On April 14, 2015, the Member was notified by her Board that she was being dismissed. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “J” is s copy of the Board’s letter of dismissal to the Member dated April 14, 2015.

Ethical Standards

27. The Member acknowledges that by bringing a urinary catheter into the classroom with a diagram of a vulva that visually explained how to insert the catheter, and by making false written statements to her Board in order to obtain paid sick leave, she violated the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “K” is a copy of the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

28. By this document, the Member agrees that, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the Disciplinary Committee can accept as correct the facts referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

29. The Member understands that the Discipline Committee may accept that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the findings by the College that these facts constitute breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

30. By this document, the Member states that:

a) she understands the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against her;

b) she understands that by signing this document, she consents to the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee, and agrees that the Committee can accept the facts as accurate for the purposes of this proceeding;

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

e) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to present evidence relating to the Committee’s findings;

f) she does not intend to present evidence as to the order to be made by the Committee based on its findings and conclusions in accordance with this Statement of Uncontested Facts;

g) she understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including her name, shall be published in the College’s official publication;

h) she understands that any agreement between the College and herself with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;

i) she understands this Agreement and acknowledges that she is executing it voluntarily, unequivocally and after having had the opportunity to obtain advice of legal counsel.

31. The Member provides this Plea of No Contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding 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.

32. In light of the aforementioned Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

College Counsel requested the withdrawal of the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member had breached Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(12) and 1(13). College Counsel stated that the College was seeking permission from the Panel to withdraw the allegations following negotiations that were part of the adversarial process and had resulted in the signing of theStatement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. The Panel granted these requests.

Having 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(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member did not dispute the accuracy of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 27 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. She 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 brought inappropriate materials into the classroom and provided explanations regarding the use of a urinary catheter to a Grade [XXX]class. In addition, the Member took advantage of the Board’s sick leave plan and made several false statements to her Board in that regard.

The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the College by-laws, which set out the ethical standards for the teaching profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). Specifically, the Member contravened the ethical standards of “Care”, “Trust” and “Integrity”. The ethical standard of Care entails showing compassion and exercising good judgment to help students succeed. The Member failed to be caring when she brought a urinary catheter and a diagram of a vulva showing how to insert the catheter into the classroom. She did not consider the impact her actions might have on Grade [XXX] students, thus demonstrating a lack of professional judgment. This in turn undermined public trust in the teaching profession. A teacher should know what is acceptable in the classroom and should consider the impact of their actions on students. The Member therefore also violated the ethical standard of Trust. Lastly, the Member failed to demonstrate Integrity when she repeatedly took advantage of the Board’s sick leave plan and made false statements to her Board in this regard. Members of the profession are expected to be honest and reliable and to behave ethically. In the present matter, the Member was dishonest when she requested paid sick leave when she was not entitled to do so.

The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Paragraph 264(1)(c) provides that teachers shall “inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.” The Member failed to act as a role model for her students when she brought a urinary catheter from a hospital into the classroom and showed a diagram to Students 1, 2 and 3 explaining how to insert it. It was completely inappropriate for the Member to have brought this material into a Grade [XXX] classroom and given it to students. This could have created a dangerous situation if the students had tried to use the material.

The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that 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). College Counsel submitted, and the Panel agrees, that the Member’s overall conduct supports this finding. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that on several occasions between October 2014 and January 2015, the Member took advantage the Board’s sick leave plan. She requested sick leave when she was actually in court for personal reasons. She also claimed paid sick leave when she was not entitled to it under the terms of the collective agreement. The Member made several false statements to her Board in order to obtain the paid sick leave in question. Her lack of ethical and professional judgment in this regard can reasonably be considered by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). The Member engaged in inappropriate conduct on several occasions. First, she brought a urinary catheter into the classroom, then she made false statements about needing sick leave to her Board. Her lack of professionalism and integrity was damaging to the reputation of the teaching profession.

F. PENALTY DEcision

The 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:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing 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 shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of two months, as of the 15th calendar day following the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order are rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will begin on September 1.

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

a) Prior to commencing any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics and boundaries, 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 subparagraph (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 course goals;

b) Within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in paragraph (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

The 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.⁶The 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. Pita, 2019 ONOCT 36, Ontario College of Teachers v. Johnson, 2019 ONOCT 23, Ontario College of Teachers v. Deault, 2020 ONOCT 187 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Palangio, 2021 ONOCT 40.

The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factor in the Member’s case is that the professional misconduct committed was not an isolated act. The Member repeatedly took advantage her Board’s sick leave plan. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member acknowledged her professional misconduct, saving the time and resources of a contested hearing. Furthermore, she had not previously been subject to any disciplinary measures. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is unlikely to bring the administration of the disciplinary process into disrepute.

The Panel finds that, for behaving inappropriately and dishonestly, the Member merits a reprimand. Members of the profession are expected to set an example, which the Member failed to do by bringing inappropriate materials into a Grade [XXX] classroom. Furthermore, the Member’s pattern of requesting paid sick leave while she was in court for personal reasons demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity. The reprimand will allow the Panel to express its concerns directly to the Member, which will have a specific deterrent effect on her. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register is important, as it will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

Given the Member’s repeated dishonesty, the Panel finds that a two-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the prior cases presented are factually distinct in some ways from the present matter, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is similar and confirms that a suspension is warranted. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent on the Member and a general deterrent on other members of the profession, sending a clear message that making false statements to their school board in order to obtain paid sick leave is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will commence on September 1, 2023.

The Panel finds that the course on professional ethics and boundaries will assist with the Member’s rehabilitation. It will remind her of her obligations as a teacher and help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

The 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

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
3. 3Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
4. 4On January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws became section 26.
5. 6See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.
6. 5This section has been reproduced verbatim; any grammatical errors are contained in the original agreement.