DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Carolyn Patricia Roes, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CAROLYN PATRICIA ROES (REGISTRATION #401744)
PANEL: Linda Staudt, OCT, Chair
Marlène Marwah
Victoria Romero
HEARD: August 10, 2023
Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Vanora Simpson, for Carolyn Patricia Roes
Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on August 10, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Carolyn Patricia Roes (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.
A. PUBLICATION ban
3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated May 5, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Carolyn Patricia Roes is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);1
(b) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) she failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(d) 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);
(e) 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);
(f) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
At all material times, Carolyn Patricia Roes (formerly known as ‘Carolyn Patricia Russell’) was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. The Member resigned from the College effective December 2, 2022. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Waterloo Region District School Board (the “Board”) as a [XXX]teacher to students from [XXX] to Grade [XXX] at [XXX]School (the “School”) in Kitchener, Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were [XXX]year-old Grade [XXX] male students at the School. The Member was their Core [XXX] teacher.
On October 20, 2021, during [XXX]class, Student 1 and Student 2 were taped to their chairs using masking tape.
Specifically, the Member asked the [XXX] teacher (the “[XXX]Teacher”) for a roll of masking tape. A piece of tape was placed across the top of Student 1’s thighs and onto his chair.
As the [XXX]Teacher left the classroom, she overheard the Member say to the class, “Boys and girls, it’s okay. He can get out, right, [Student 1]?”
Later, a piece of tape was placed across Student 2’s chest and over his arms.
The Member’s intent was that the tape would serve as a reminder to Student 1 not to get up from his seat and to Student 2 not to twist around in his seat to socialize with Student 1.
Each student later confirmed in an interview with police that they removed the tape themselves from their own bodies by the end of the class.
The Member acknowledges that her conduct centered out and may have embarrassed Student 1 and Student 2 in front of their peers, and highlighted that Student 1, in particular, had consistent challenges remaining seated during class.
After this incident, Student 1 told police that he was afraid to return to school.
On or about November 4, 2021, the Member was criminally charged with two counts of assault (one in relation to each of Student 1 and Student 2), contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code (Canada).
On or about May 18, 2022, the Crown Attorney withdrew both charges in exchange for a 10-year Order Pursuant to the Court’s Common Law Preventive Justice Power (the “Peace Bond”).
The Peace Bond includes the following terms, which are relevant to the Member’s eligibility to teach:
(a) Do not apply for a paid or unpaid position in any public, Catholic, or private school in Canada;
(b) Do not work or volunteer in any public, Catholic, or private school in Canada; and
(c) Do not work or volunteer in any position of authority vis-à-vis children aged 12 or younger.
The Member did not appeal the decision in the criminal proceeding.
The Member resigned from her employment with the Board on May 9, 2022. She had worked as a teacher with the Board since 2005, and at the School since 2010.
The Member has no prior complaints regarding her professional conduct and had never faced professional discipline by her Board or the College before this incident.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a certified copy of the Court Information sworn on November 15, 2021, along with the disposition in the criminal proceeding.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a certified copy of the transcript of Proceedings before the Honourable Justice A.T. McKay on May 18, 2022.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a certified copy of the Order Pursuant to the Court’s Common Law Preventive Justice Power (Peace Bond) issued by the Honourable Justice A.T. McKay on May 18, 2022.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-20 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the conduct set out at paragraphs 4-15 and 18-20 of the Admitted Facts constitutes professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document, the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty 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;
(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was being sought as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. The Panel granted the request.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered a decision on August 10, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1 (14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 20 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the conduct set out at paragraphs 4 to 15 and 18 to 20 of the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in inappropriate physical contact with two students by using masking tape to tape Student 1 and Student 2 to their chairs.
9The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member abused students psychologically or emotionally contrary to subsection 1 (7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 and Student 2 had a negative impact on their emotional well being. The Member taped both Student 1 and Student 2 to their chairs with masking tape to serve as a reminder to Student 1 not to get up from his seat and to Student 2 not to twist around in his seat to socialize with Student 1. After the incident, Student 1 told the police that he was afraid to return to school. Moreover, it can reasonably be inferred that using physical means to symbolically restrain [XXX]year-old students in an attempt to manage their behaviour would make them scared and upset. In fact, the Member acknowledged that her conduct centered out and may have embarrassed Student 1 and Student 2 in front of their peers. Given the physical imbalance that exists between a member and the students, it was emotionally abusive for the Member to engage in such behaviour towards Student 1 and Student 2. The Member’s conduct therefore amounts to psychological or emotional abuse of students.
10The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1 (14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 26 of the by-laws, which sets out the professional and ethical standards of the teaching profession. The Member breached the ethical standards of “Care”, “Respect” and “Integrity”. The Member breached the standards of practice of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” and “Leadership in Learning Communities”. The standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate a commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. The standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. The standard of “Integrity” embodies honesty, reliability, and moral action. The standard of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” requires members to dedicate their care and commitment to student learning and treating students with respect. The standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities” requires members to promote and participate in the collaboration of safe and supportive learning communities. In using inappropriate classroom management techniques, by taping Student 1 and Student 2 to their chairs, the Member disregarded her students’ well-being and created a fearful atmosphere which is incompatible with the expectation that teachers will promote a safe and positive learning environment. The Member also showed a lack of respect towards the students and failed to act in an empathetic and sensitive way towards them. As such, the Member’s conduct falls below the professional and ethical standards of the teaching profession.
11The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 2., which sets out the duties of a teacher. Section 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models and to adopt the highest regard for a certain number of moral values. Section 264(1)(e) requires members to maintain proper order and discipline in the classroom. By using highly inappropriate classroom management strategies to address Student 1 and Student 2’s behaviour, the Member failed to model healthy and appropriate conflict resolution strategies to her class. As such, she failed to act as a positive role model to her students. The Member also failed to maintain proper order and discipline in her classroom in a professional and appropriate way. It is never appropriate for a teacher to use physical means to discipline students. In these ways, the Member failed to fulfil the duties of a teacher.
12The Panel finds 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). The Member’s inappropriate physical contact with Student 1 and Student 2, including using masking tape to tape both students to their chairs until they removed the tape themselves, displayed poor judgment and a complete disregard for her professional obligations and the well-being of her very young students. The Member’s criminal proceedings and 10-year Peace Bond, which includes terms relevant to her eligibility to teach, are further evidence of the Member’s disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.
13Finally, the Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member’s conduct was also unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Members who engage in inappropriate physical contact as a classroom management technique undermine the reputation of the teaching profession as a whole and violate the trust that parents, student and the public place in teachers.
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 August 10, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered via video conference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four (4) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee in this matter, and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to resuming or commencing any teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding classroom management, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee; and
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee's concerns regarding the Member's professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member; and
(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written 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 such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Ivanova, 2014 ONOCT 49, Ontario College of Teachers v. Shapiro,2021 ONOCT 136, Ontario College of Teachers v. Lyons, 2021 ONOCT 83 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Fife,2022 ONOCT 12.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the flagrantly inappropriate nature of the contact exercised on the students, the students’ young age, the emotional impact that the Member’s conduct had on Student 1 and Student 2, and that the Member’s criminal charges, while withdrawn, resulted in a 10-year Peace Bond in exchange for the withdrawal. In terms of mitigating factors, the case involved one incident of inappropriate conduct, there is no evidence that the Member’s intent was to harm the students through her conduct, the Member has no prior discipline history with the Board or the College, and the Member admitted the misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. 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 use of highly inappropriate classroom management techniques, warrants a reprimand. Teachers are expected to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for students. They must also remain professional when managing challenging student behaviour. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a four-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, should she ever return to the teaching profession, and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on August 25, 2023, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member and will help ensure the physical and emotional safety of students, should the Member ever return to the teaching profession. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: August 17, 2023
Linda Staudt, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah
Member, Discipline Panel
Victoria Romero
Member, Discipline Panel
1 Allegation withdrawn.
2 See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.