DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Corradetti 2023 ONOCT 50

Date: 2023-07-11

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

Michael Anthony Corradetti, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

MICHAEL ANTHONY CORRADETTI (REGISTRATION #421924)

PANEL: Damienne Lebrun-Reid, Chair

Anne Laflamme, OCT

Emile Ramlochan

HEARD: June 28, 2023

Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Jerry Raso, for Michael Anthony Corradetti

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 June 28, 2023, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Michael Anthony Corradetti (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but had legal representation. The Member attended immediately after the hearing for the delivery of his reprimand, as agreed to by the parties.

3The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION BAN

4The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated August 31, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Michael Anthony Corradetti is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

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

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

(c) he engaged in sexual misconduct, as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(d) he committed acts or omissions 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);

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

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

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

1. At all material times, Michael Anthony Corradetti was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. 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 Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) located in Barrie, Ontario.

3. In the academic year 2019/2020, the Member made comments that were inappropriate and that he knew or ought to have known were unwelcome, including:

(a) asking a male student, “What do you want to be? A terrorist?”;

(b) telling the class he would not acknowledge the pronoun “ze” or any pronoun other than he/she pronouns;

(c) telling the class there were only two genders and he would not acknowledge that there were other genders or gender identifiers;

(d) stating that people who were gender neutral were stupid and he did not understand them; and

(e) asking a female student in front of the class if she was up late watching Asian porn on her phone.

4. In the academic year 2020/2021, the Member made two podcast episodes that were made publicly available online where he made inappropriate comments about his students at the School, including:

(a) giving the nickname “Gerbil” to a student in his Grade [XXX] class because he said the student was “gerbil sized”;

(b) giving the nickname “El Chapo” to a student in his Grade [XXX] class because the student looked like “he should be in the Mexican cartel” and he was sure the student “was not Mexican, but that’s what he looked like”;

(c) giving the nickname “whitey” to a student in his Grade [XXX] class because the student was a “prototypical white guy”;

(d) saying “that doesn’t sound gay at all” in response to learning that a male student in his class was attracted to a certain type of female;

(e) on the topic of Filipino culture, saying “if you date outside of the race you aren’t the black sheep of the family you are the white sheep because they are all darker” and that it was “another cliché that all Filipinos end up nurses”;

(f) describing his Grade [XXX] class “as predominantly girls in the class which is a huge plus because my idiot factor should go down by an exponential factor”; and

(g) saying that he asked his class, “do you use Snapchat for the dirty stuff or the R rated stuff?”.

5. In the academic year 2020/2021, the Member showed the students in his Grade [XXX] [XXX]class a video that he recorded of himself making the following inappropriate comments:

(a) he would be the first person to say that all lives matter, after referring to Black Lives Matter;

(b) comments about white privilege were racist, but he could not take offence to the comments because he was white;

(c) he, as a middle-aged white male, was the target audience for white privilege;

(d) he did not understand how in hip hop and rap music:

(i) the ‘n’ word was “tossed around left, right and centre,” which was not racist or flawed, yet if he said the word, he would be on the “hotseat” because it was a racial slur;

(ii) the ‘n’ word was a racial slur one way and not the other, depending on who said the word; and

(iii) how would someone know that he, as a white person, was not using the ‘n’ word in the same way that the person uses it in the hip hop/rap song;

(e) white people were ok with people saying that something was cultural appropriation, but “heaven forbid” if he turned around and said to a minority group or some other group of individuals that they were appropriating something from our culture.

6. The conduct described in paragraphs 4 to 6 [sic] caused students to experience emotional and psychological upset and distress.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

7. By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-6 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

8. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 3-6 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

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

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

(c) he engaged in sexual misconduct, as defined in section 1 of the Act;

(d) he committed an act or 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);

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

9. By this document the Member states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.

10. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, 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.

11. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on June 28, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(18) and 1(19). The Panel also found that the Member engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act.

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the conduct set out at paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Uncontested Facts constitutes professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member repeatedly made inappropriate, offensive and disrespectful comments to or about students, including on publicly available podcasts.

9The Panel finds that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Over the course of two academic years, the Member repeatedly made demeaning comments to or about students in which he openly shared his bigoted views with respect to race, place of origin, gender identity and gender expression, as set out above. He also insulted students based on their physical appearances, and made sexually suggestive comments to students in front of their peers. Moreover, the Member dismissed issues affecting Black culture by showing students a video that he recorded of himself in which he (a white, male teacher) shared his personal opinions about “Black Lives Matter”, white privilege, the use of the “n” word in hip hop and rap music, and cultural appropriation. Not only were the Member’s comments highly offensive, but they were also completely unrelated to the curriculum he was expected to teach. Members of the teaching profession are expected to ensure that the diversity that exists in Ontario’s schools is respected and that they do not alienate any students by publicly sharing their personally held, intolerant views. Such demeaning and discriminatory comments have no place in the classroom as they are an affront to the human dignity and diverse cultural and gender identities of students. The Member engaged in verbal abuse by repeatedly demeaning the students he was supposed to teach and encourage.

10The Panel finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused students, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s comments on the podcast episodes and in his video shared with his class degraded students by espousing disrespectful views about their appearances, cultures, races, and notions of white privilege and cultural appropriation. The Member’s conduct caused students to experience emotional and psychological upset and distress. Given the negative impact that the Member’s comments had on students’ psychological or emotional well-being, and his position of trust and authority as a member of the teaching profession, the Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was psychologically or emotionally abusive.

11The Panel finds that the Member engaged in sexual misconduct, as defined in section 1 of the Act. Sexual misconduct is defined to include inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature by the member where the member knows or ought to know that one or more students are likely to be exposed to the remarks and a reasonable person would expect the remarks to (1) cause distress to a student, (2) be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of a student, or (3) create a negative environment at a school for a student exposed to the remarks. By asking a student in front of the class if she was up late watching Asian porn on her phone, and by publicly stating on a podcast that he asked his class, “Do you use Snapchat for the dirty stuff or the R rated stuff?” the Member exposed students to remarks of a sexual nature that would reasonably be considered distressing or detrimental to the well-being of students, or that would create a negative environment at school for a student exposed to the remarks. Such comments are completely inappropriate for a teacher, who holds a position of trust and authority, to make to students, and they would reasonably make students feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or humiliated. The comments were inappropriately personal, they had nothing to do with the curriculum the Member was assigned to teach, and they were sexual in nature. Accordingly, the Member’s comments meet the definition of sexual misconduct set out in the Act.

12The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. As set out above, the Member’s comments demeaned students on the basis of their race, place of origin, gender identity and expression, and physical appearance, and some of his comments were also sexual in nature and obviously inappropriate. The Member spread his intolerant views both in class and in public, with no regard for how his comments would hurt or offend students or make them feel uncomfortable or distressed in his class. This demonstrates his profound lack of moral and professional judgment. The Member’s moral failings and unprofessionalism led to an unsafe and uncomfortable learning environment for students of diverse backgrounds and beliefs.

13The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that are unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Students and the wider public community expect members to be respectful, as they hold a position of trust and authority in the classroom. They are entrusted with the responsibility to shape students’ minds and behaviours. The Member’s inappropriate comments undermined the reputation of the profession, as they promoted intolerance and demeaned students.

F. PENALTY DECISION

14The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 28, 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 of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of seven months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;

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

(a) within 90 days of the date of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom communication and cultural sensitivity, subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 3(a)(i) above, the course practitioner shall provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee's concerns regarding the Member's professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member and the assignments to be completed by the Member; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in paragraph 3(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from the course practitioner stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

15The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.² The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient so as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by the College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48; Ontario College of Teachers v. Texeira, 2022 ONOCT 40; Ontario College of Teachers v. Chrisopoulos, 2022 ONOCT 101; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Hall, 2022 ONOCT 118.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case include the fact that the Member’s comments caused students to experience emotional and psychological upset and distress. Also, the repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct indicates that his behaviour was not the result of a momentary lapse of judgment. Rather, he made numerous offensive and demeaning comments to and about students in his class and on publicly available podcasts over the course of two academic years. In terms of mitigating factors, the Panel notes that the Member did not contest his misconduct, which saved the time and expense of a contested hearing, and that he has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of making inappropriate and disrespectful comments warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models for students and to promote respect for people of various backgrounds and beliefs, which the Member failed to do. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will also serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession by demonstrating that similar misconduct will not be tolerated.

18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a seven-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. It will also serve to protect the public by removing the Member from the classroom for a significant period of time. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on July 13, 2023, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.

19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom communication and cultural sensitivity will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students, which will thereby protect the public.

20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1The Notice of Hearing mistakenly alleged that the Member verbally abused a student or students contrary to subsection 1(7.1) instead of 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The parties confirmed during the hearing that the correct reference is to subsection 1(7).
2. 2See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.