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
Julie Ann Riesberry, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JULIE ANN RIESBERRY (REGISTRATION #423491)
PANEL: Élaine Legault, Chair Brian Serafini, OCT Lisa Tucker
HEARD: August 1, 2023
Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Diana Mazzotta, for Julie Ann Riesberry Rebecca Durcan, 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 1, 2023, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Julie Ann Riesberry (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation.
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 January 11, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Julie Ann Riesberry is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) 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);
(b) she falsified a record relating to the member’s professional responsibilities, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(13);
(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);1
(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);2
(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
6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Julie Ann Riesberry is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Halton Catholic District School Board (the “Board”). The Member was Principal at [XXX] School (“[XXX]”) from September 2015 to June 2020. The Member was transferred to [XXX] School (“[XXX]”) by the Board and began her principalship at [XXX] in September 2020.
At all material times, Person A was a male teacher at [XXX]. Person A identifies as a Black person.
April 2016
On April 8, 2016, Person A’s daughter was playing in a [XXX]tournament at another school within the Board. At the end of the game, Person A’s daughter was pushed by a student from the other team. A verbal altercation then began between Person A and his wife and the parents of the other student. The principal of the school of where the tournament was hosted intervened. Person A was upset that the principal of the other school did not reprimand the student who had pushed his daughter. Person A made a comment to the principal and the other parents that if his daughter had pushed the other student the consequences would have been different - implying that race was a factor in the lack of discipline by the principal to the student.
The morning after the incident, the Member asked Person A to come to the office. Person A met with the Member and the Vice-Principal. The Member spoke to Person A regarding Person A’s actions and informed Person A that he should not have made the comment to the student’s parents and to the principal of the other school. The Member told Person A that should such behaviour reoccur, that Person A would be written up in line with the Board’s Parent Code of Conduct. The Member failed to address whether the conduct of the other principal had been affected by racism, or acknowledge that this was the reasons for Person A’s comment. As such, the Member’s admonishment of Person A was an adverse treatment of Person A in which race was a factor.
February 2019
- In February 2019, the Member showed Person A a screenshot of a text message and read it aloud to Person A. The text message contained the full “N-word” and the Member read the N-word aloud.
April/May 2019
In April or May 2019, the Member met with Person A and another colleague at [XXX] to discuss a Grade [XXX] student (“Student 1”) who had used the N-word toward another student. Both Person A and the colleague felt that Student 1 had not been sufficiently disciplined. During the course of her discussion of the incident, the Member used the N-word twice when quoting the student.
Later that same day, the Member instructed Student 1’s Grade [XXX] teacher to use the full N-word to explain to the students why using the N-word was not permitted at [XXX]. When explaining her instruction to the teacher, the Member herself used the full N-word.
December 18, 2019
- On December 18, 2019, there was a potluck lunch for staff at [XXX]. A student (“Student 2”), who was a student of colour, came to school that day and forgot his lunch. The Member learned that Student 2 did not have lunch and went to the [XXX] staff room to get Student 2 some food from the potluck lunch. The Member reached for some fried chicken and filled a plate. While doing so, she said words to the effect of, “Oh don’t worry this is not all for me, Student 2 is in my office,” and further stated, “What black kid doesn’t like fried chicken[?]”. Members of staff were present in the staff room and heard the comment. The Member then took the food to Student 2.
January to May 2020
In January 2020, a member of staff organized a display for Black History Month. When the Member saw the display and during a discussion with the staff member, the Member made a comment to the effect that she was not racist, but she did not want to “tick off the Black Lives Matter parents.” In addition, during a discussion with colleagues about an author being considered as a speaker at a Black History Month event at [XXX], the Member asked, “Oh, is she Black enough[?]”.
In February 2020, the Member overheard a conversation among staff members regarding what their students were going to give up for Lent and the Member interjected with words to the effect of, “I know what I am giving up for Lent, Black Lives Matter”.
In February 2020, the Member wore a shirt at [XXX] that had the colours of the Jamaican flag on it. A colleague asked the Member whether she was wearing the colours for Black History Month and the Member responded affirmatively. The Member also said that she seen t-shirts for sale online that said N1 and N2, in reference to the N-word.
In March 2020, the Member dealt with two situations involving parents of Black students which left her frustrated. Subsequently, she had a meeting with the Vice-Principal and a colleague. At the beginning of the meeting, when asked what she was giving up for Lent, the Member replied in frustration that she wanted to “give up Black Lives Matter for Lent”.
On April 28, 2020, the Member had a discussion with the parent of a Black student about the French Immersion program at [XXX]. The parent, whose child had not been accepted into the program, spoke to the Member regarding the lack of diversity in the program. The Member was frustrated by the conversation and told a colleague that “that family always uses the race card” and “all those parents care about is Black Lives Matter”.
On May 26, 2020, during a virtual graduation planning meeting with some staff members, including Person A, a colleague asked the Member if she had been on vacation because she had a tan. The Member replied to the effect of, “No [Person A], I have not been to Jamaica”.
Alteration of Student 2’s Attendance Record
In response to events described above, the Board conducted an investigation into the Member’s conduct. On November 12, 2020, the Board investigator provided a copy of the investigation report to the Member and invited the Member to provide a response.
On December 2, 2020, the Member provided a written response to the Board investigator. With respect to the incident alleged to have occurred on December 18, 2019 (described in paragraph 9 above), the Member denied she had made those comments. In her written response to the Board investigator she stated that she checked the Board’s Trillium system (“Trillium”) and ascertained that Student 2 was absent from school on December 18, 2019. The Board investigator requested that the Trillium attendance records to be checked to determine if Student 2 had actually been present at school on December 18, 2019.
In fact, Student 2 was present on December 18, 2019. A capture of the Trillium records as of October 2020 showed that Student 2 had been marked as present on December 18, 2019. However, a review of records by the Board’s IT department revealed that on November 15, 2020, the Member entered the Trillium system and altered Student 2’s attendance record for December 18, 2019 to mark Student 2 as absent.
The Member altered Student 2’s attendance record in order to attempt to corroborate her denial of the conduct outlined in paragraph 9 above.
Board Action
Following the completion of the Board investigation, the Member received a letter of discipline by the Board. In the letter it was noted that the Board investigator determined that the allegations of harassment as they related to racial discrimination and creating a poisoned work environment were substantiated. In addition, the Board investigator concluded that the Member had altered the attendance record of Student 2. As a result, the Member was suspended without pay for a period of 10 days. The Member was also directed to complete training on anti-Black racism, racism in the workplace and Catholic leadership. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member dated February 18, 2021.
The events that are described in the paragraphs above were disturbing and upsetting to colleagues at [XXX]. Person A found the Member’s comments and use of N-word upsetting and painful. He considered that his personal human dignity was attacked when having to endure the unwelcome comments by the Member. Colleagues who witnessed the Member’s interactions with Person A contacted him to offer support in light of the Member’s comments. A staff member who witnessed the incident described in paragraph 9 above was upset and in tears following the incident. Other staff at [XXX] were upset and disturbed by the Member’s racist comments and use of N-word but felt too intimidated or fearful to respond.
Current Status
- The Member is currently Principal at [XXX].
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(12), 1(13), 1(14), 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 otherwise 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 does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and the 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
7Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) 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. College Counsel further submitted that the misconduct at issue was not done in front of or directly towards students and as such, the allegation was accurately captured under the other heads of misconduct. The Panel granted the request.
8Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on August 1, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(12), 1(13), 1(14), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 22 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 Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of inappropriate, racist comments to staff members at the School and also falsified an attendance record in her official capacity as a Principal.
10The Panel finds that the Member signed or issued, in her professional capacity, a document that she knew or ought to have known contained a false, improper or misleading statement, contrary to subsections 1(12) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. On December 2, 2020, the Member wrote a letter to the Board, in which she denied making comments about Student 2 on December 18, 2019. The Member further wrote that she had checked the Board’s Trillium system and that Student 2 was absent from school on December 18, 2019. Through this written response, the Member knowingly made false, improper and misleading statements to the Board.
11The Panel finds that the Member falsified a record relating to her professional responsibilities, contrary to subsection 1(13) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member had changed the attendance record of Student 2 to make it appear like he was not present on December 18, 2019, in order to corroborate her false claim that she made a racist comment about Black children in front of staff on that day. The Member knew that Student 2 was, in fact, present on that day, yet she falsified his attendance record for her own benefit. As Principal, the Member has the professional privilege to access the attendance system and abused this authority to falsify Student 2’s attendance record for her own benefit.
12The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws (previously numbered as section 32), contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. In particular, the Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the profession’s standards of practice, specifically “Professional Knowledge” and “Leadership in Learning Communities.” Members ought to recognize the importance of professional knowledge and ethics in informing their judgment and practice. As Principal, the Member held a supervisory and leadership role. She is expected to act as a role model for the school community and is vested with the responsibility of fostering a safe and collaborative community for everyone, including other members of the teaching profession. Her racist comments and disrespectful, dishonest conduct had a significant impact on the school community and created a poisoned workplace environment. The Panel finds this especially concerning as it can reasonably result in creating an uncomfortable learning environment for students. Although she made these comments to staff and not directly to students, the fact that the Member decided that it was appropriate to make racist and disrespectful comments in a school setting is indicative of her disregard and disrespect to the Black community. Her dishonest conduct in falsifying Student 2’s attendance records and misleading the Board is also indicative of her failure to adhere to the standard of Leadership, as it was not reflective of how a role model and leader in the community should act.
13The Member also failed to uphold the ethical standards of the profession, particularly “Care,” “Respect,” “Trust,” and “Integrity.” Members are expected to be fair, open and honest in fulfilling their professional responsibilities. The Member repeatedly failed to maintain these standards with her colleagues and the Board. Her racist comments demonstrated ignorance and disregard for the dignity and well-being of students, parents and colleagues and perpetuated derogatory stereotypes. Her deceitful conduct in misleading the Board and falsifying Student 2’s attendance record for her own personal gain was indicative of her poor judgment and disregard for the Board’s policies and the trust placed in her to uphold ethical values in her professional practice.
14The 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 subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s disrespectful and deceitful conduct demonstrated significant moral failings and a lack of good professional judgment. She ought to have known that her comments and actions were wrong, especially as a Principal. The Member’s conduct was also unprofessional, as it showed a deliberate and blatant disregard for her professional obligations and her duties to her students and staff. Members have an obligation to model behaviour that sets a positive example and should not engage in negative, disrespectful conduct that impacts the culture and environment of the school community. Her inappropriate behaviour cast serious doubt on her ability to discharge her obligations in a moral and professional manner. The Member’s misconduct demonstrated a concerning level of disrespect and dishonesty towards her students, staff, the profession and school community, and could reasonably be regarded my members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
15The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members of the teaching profession, and especially administrators such as the Member, should be culturally inclusive. Everyone in the school community is entitled to feel safe and accepted in their school environment, regardless of their race or cultural background. There is no place for racism, discrimination and intolerance in a learning environment. The Member’s racist, disrespectful and dishonest conduct showed a flagrant disregard for her professional and ethical obligations to the profession, students, staff, and wider community. She damaged the reputation of the teaching profession. The trust that the public places in members, especially Principals, was eroded when the Member took advantage of her position of authority. The Member’s misconduct seriously undermined the reputation of the teaching profession, and the Panel finds this to be conduct unbecoming a member.
F. PENALTY DECISION
16The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on August 1, 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 in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference and the fact of the reprimand shall 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 10 months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, two courses of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anti-Black racism and inclusive leadership and professional ethics, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioners 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 and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;
(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;
(b) within thirty (30) days of her completion of the courses outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from each 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
17The 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.3 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. Campbell, 2022 ONOCT 103; Ontario College of Teachers v. Chrisopoulos, 2022 ONOCT 101; Ontario College of Teachers v. MacKellar, 2017 ONOCT 76; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Lajoie, 2022 ONOCT 19.
18The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the fact that the Member was an experienced Principal, responsible for setting the professional tone of the school and the inherent power imbalance between her and her staff members that led to her colleagues feeling upset and disturbed at her comments, but being too intimidated and fearful to respond. Further, the Panel finds that the prolonged duration of the Member’s misconduct was aggravating, as it established a pattern of engaging in demeaning behaviour and was not an isolated incident or momentary lapse in judgment. In terms of mitigating factors, the Panel considered that the Member admitted her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past, and the fact that the Member’s conduct was not witnessed by students. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
19The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models in the school community, which the Member failed to do by engaging in racist and disrespectful comments to her colleagues and her brazen and dishonest conduct when she falsified Student 2’s attendance record and mislead the Board for her own benefit. 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.
20Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a 10-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. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on August 16, 2023, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
21The Panel finds that the courses of instruction regarding anti-Black racism and inclusive leadership and professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. 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.
22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: August 10, 2023
Élaine Legault Chair, Discipline Panel
Brian Serafini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Lisa Tucker Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- As of January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws has been re-numbered as section 26.
- Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204; Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453.