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
Jovette Marie Nancy Landry, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JOVETTE MARIE NANCY LANDRY (REGISTRATION #620630)
PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair Susan Arbour, OCT Marlène Marwah
HEARD: October 11, 2023
Christine Lonsdale, for Ontario College of Teachers Jovette Marie Nancy Landry, representing herself Maître 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.
1This matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on October 11, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee, the proceeding was held electronically.
2Jovette Marie Nancy Landry (the “Member”) was in attendance for the hearing and represented herself. 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 (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 set out in Notice of Hearing No. 6146, dated March 15, 2022 (Exhibit 1), are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Jovette Marie Nancy Landry is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
a) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
b) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
c) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
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)1;
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).
5The allegations against the Member set out in Notice of Hearing No. 5763, dated March 16, 2022 (Exhibit 2), are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Jovette Marie Nancy Landry is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
a) she abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
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 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14)2;
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).
6The parties have agreed to hold a single hearing to deal with the allegations set out in these two Notices of Hearing, in accordance with clause 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTs
7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 3), which provides the following:
Jovette Marie Nancy Landry 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil des écoles catholiques de Centre-Est (the “Board”) as a teacher. During the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 academic years, the Member was teaching at École [XXX] (“École [XXX]”) in Gloucester, Ontario, and at École [XXX] (“École [XXX]”) in Ottawa, Ontario.
2018-2019 Academic Year
During the 2018-2019 academic year at École [XXX], the principal received numerous complaints from parents and students about the Member’s conduct. Concerns related to her overly rigid and uncompromising approach with students, her belittling comments, and her overly high expectations of work produced by students. Concerns were also raised about the Member yelling at students. Incidents were documented in December 2018, and in January, April, and May 2019.
In light of these numerous incidents, the principal (Ms. Marie-Diane Dallaire) suggested in May 2019 that the Member develop an action plan to improve her relationships with students. In May and June 2019, the Board began a climate survey in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class at École [XXX]. Students reported that:
a) The Member compared the assignments of some students and showed them to the class. The students felt embarrassed by the comparisons and the Member’s behaviour had an adverse effect on these students;
b) The Member compared some students with students from other schools. She once said to a student, “Some students can do the work in two days, but you can’t do it even with an extra week”;
c) The Member yelled a lot in the classroom; and
d) The Member had called her students “wild sheep” when describing the disorderly way some of them had lined up at the end of class. The Member also said to a student who had indicated that her comments were unkind: “Shut your mouth, get in line.”
During the 2018-2019 academic year, at École [XXX], an incident occurred between the Member and Student 1, a [XXX] year-old male student. In April 2019, the principal received a complaint from Student 1’s mother. The Member had not allowed Student 1 to leave the classroom. She stood in the doorway and engaged in disrespectful interactions with Student 1.
On the morning of June 6, 2019, Student 1 handed in his work to the Member. Dissatisfied with the work, the Member read it aloud and yelled at Student 1 in front of the class. A shouting match between the Member and Student 1 ensued in the hallway. The Member made the following remarks referring to Student 1 in front of the other students in the class: “no effort, rude, disrespectful, lazy.” Student 1 cried his eyes out. The Member told Student 1 that he could not participate in any educational school activity. Student 1 felt humiliated and disrespected by the Member. The Member’s words and conduct had a detrimental impact on Student 1.
The Member’s colleagues made an effort to speak with the Member to get her to allow Student 1 to participate in the educational school activity. The Member was angry, loud and refused to listen. A colleague had to ask the Member not to speak to her that way in front of the students.
On September 11, 2019, following an investigation by the Board, the Member received a disciplinary letter and was suspended for two days. A copy of the Board’s letter to the Member, dated September 11, 2019, is attached as Appendix B.
2019-2020 Academic Year
- During the 2019-2020 academic year, the Member taught [XXX] and [XXX] to Grade [XXX] students at École [XXX]. In February 2020, in response to complaints received from parents and students, the principal of École [XXX] asked a number of the Member’s students to complete a questionnaire regarding the school climate. According to the Board, the Member had fostered a stressful climate in her classroom that was not conducive to learning. Some of the students indicated that the Member:
a) regularly yelled at students, including when he [sic] made mistakes on their assignments;
b) bullied students;
c) was mean; and
d) described students’ mistakes in front of the other students in the class and made fun of the students.
Some of the students who responded to the questionnaires indicated their desire to change teachers and even change schools because of the Member. One student reported that the Member described his mistakes to the whole class, so that he sometimes came home crying. The Member’s behaviour had a detrimental effect on these students.
During the 2019-2020 academic year, the Member also taught at École [XXX]. On the morning of March 6, 2020, the Member was on recess duty outside before school started. Student 2 was a [XXX] student. Student 2 was running through the puddles and not listening to the Member who asked him to take his place as the students lined up. The Member grabbed Student 2 by the wrist to bring him to the front of the line, but Student 2 was not listening. The Member then took Student 2 to the office. Once inside the school, Student 2 lay down on the floor. The Member continued to pull Student 2 by the wrist while he lay on the floor until they reached the office. Before reaching the office, the Member passed by colleagues from the kindergarten class in the corridor. The colleagues did not get involved.
On May 13, 2020, following an investigation by the Board, the Member received a disciplinary letter and was suspended for five days. A copy of the Board’s letter to the Member, dated May 13, 2020, is attached as Appendix C.
The Member continues to be employed by the Board.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct, for the purposes of the present hearing only, the facts referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can 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(7), 1(7.1), 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 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’s 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; and
i) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having obtained or having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
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.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
8Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 11, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 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 created a stressful classroom climate that was not conducive to her students’ learning. Among other things, the Member yelled at students, bullied them and embarrassed them by comparing their schoolwork in front of the class. The Member also used unnecessary physical force against a student.
10The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). During the 2018-2019 academic year at École [XXX], the principal received numerous complaints from parents and students regarding the Member’s conduct in the classroom, including the fact that she frequently yelled at students. She also repeatedly used a disrespectful tone with students and made disparaging comments about them. For example, the Member compared some students with students from other schools; she also said, “Some students can do the work in two days, but you can’t do it even with an extra week.” The Member also called her students “wild sheep,” describing the haphazard way in which some of them had lined up. When one student told her that her comments were unkind, she reportedly replied, “Shut your mouth, get in line.” The Member also had a disrespectful exchange with the Student 1 when he handed in an assignment to her. Dissatisfied with the work, the Member yelled at him and said to him in front of the class: “no effort, rude, disrespectful, lazy.” In addition, during the 2019-2020 academic year, the principal of École [XXX] received several complaints from parents and students about the Member, including that the Member regularly yelled at students and pointed out mistakes in front of the class, which intimidated the students. They complained that she was mean to them. Given the power imbalance that exists between teachers and students, the Member’s behaviour constitutes verbal abuse. Instead of using professional classroom management methods, the Member frequently yelled at students and bullied them. There is no place for this kind of behaviour in the classroom.
11The Member abused a student physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1). The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that, during the 2019-2020 academic year, when the Member was teaching at École [XXX], she used physical force against Student 2, a [XXX] student. While the Member was on recess duty outside before class, Student 2 was running through puddles and not listening to her. The Member grabbed Student 2 by the wrist and led him to the front of the line. Then, after the Member brought Student 2 into the school, he lay down on the floor and she continued to pull him by the wrist until they reached the office. Teachers are responsible for ensuring the physical well-being and safety of students. They must therefore refrain from using physical force unnecessarily against students, even when they are experiencing difficulties with student behaviour.
12The Panel finds that the Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Member repeatedly engaged in intimidating and belittling conduct towards her students, which resulted in a stressful classroom environment. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member often compared students’ schoolwork out loud in front of the class. As a result, some students felt humiliated, which had a detrimental effect on them. Further, the Member had a disrespectful interaction with Student 1 during which she used derogatory language. After the conversation, Student 1 cried and felt humiliated. The Member’s conduct had a detrimental effect on Student 1. Also, when the Member taught at École [XXX], several students indicated their desire to change teachers and even change schools because of her conduct. The Member’s conduct did nothing to foster the emotional and psychological well-being of these students. Instead, she created a stressful, harsh and humiliating climate, which is hardly conducive to their learning.
13The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with section 32 (now section 26) of the by-laws, which sets out the standards of practice and ethical standards for the teaching profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). The ethical standards for the teaching profession are “Care,” “Respect,” “Trust” and “Integrity.” The standard of “Care” requires “[m]embers [to] express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice.” The ethical standard of “Respect” requires “[m]embers [to] honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development.” Regularly yelling in the classroom, making derogatory comments to students and bullying them is contrary to these ethical standards. These behaviours did not create a positive influence in the classroom, nor did they promote student learning. Furthermore, the Member was disrespectful when she used unnecessary physical force against Student 2 by pulling him by the wrist all the way to the office. In doing so, she showed a lack of respect Student 2’s human dignity and emotional well-being.
14The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). This provision requires teachers to act as positive role models for students, which the Member repeatedly failed to do. By bullying students, comparing their schoolwork in front of the whole class and making belittling remarks, the Member failed to act as a positive role model. Nor did she act as an exemplary role model when she pulled Student 2 by the wrist in the school corridor in front of other students and colleagues. The Member also failed to set an example when she engaged in a disrespectful exchange with Student 1. Her inappropriate behaviour in relation to this incident continued when her colleagues attempted to raise their concerns with her, but the Member raised her voice and became angry with them in front of students. In short, she set a poor example for the students and thus failed to uphold her duties as a teacher.
15The 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 unnecessary use of physical force against Student 2 casts serious doubt on the Member’s moral and professional competence. Even if teachers experience behavioural difficulties in students, they must refrain from using unnecessary physical force to discipline them or as a method of classroom management. Moreover, comparing students’ schoolwork with that of other students in front of the entire class is inappropriate, and the Member should have known that her conduct could be humiliating for the students. Finally, her derogatory remarks about students, and particularly about Student 1, demonstrate a serious lack of professional judgment.
16Finally, the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Parents and the public expect members of the teaching profession to ensure students’ physical and emotional safety and well-being at all times. They also expect teachers to use professional classroom management methods that show respect for their children. Through her demeaning and intimidating conduct, the Member created a stressful and intimidating classroom environment for her students, which undermines the public’s trust in teachers. In so doing, the Member tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY DEcision
17The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 11, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
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 offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of three months, as of the 15th calendar day following the decision and order of the Discipline Committee in this matter.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
a) Before resuming her teaching position or any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall, at her expense, enrol in and successfully complete a course pre-approved by the Registrar on classroom management and anger management, 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 the 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 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
18The 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 interest3. The 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 Yeung, 2021 ONOCT 125, Ontario College of Teachers v Carle, 2020 ONOCT 135 and Ontario College of Teachers v Mazerolle, 2021 ONOCT 61.
19The Panel compared the circumstances of this case with those of the case law presented. In this case, the aggravating factors are the fact that the Member repeatedly engaged in intimidating and denigrating conduct, despite the fact that she had received suggestions from the principal at École [XXX] to improve her relationships with students. Moreover, her aggressive behaviour had a detrimental impact on several students. As for mitigating factors, the Member did not contest her professional misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and sparing students from having to testify. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is unlikely to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
20The Panel finds that the Member warrants a reprimand for her overly rigid and intimidating conduct in the classroom and in interactions with many students. Teachers are expected to show respect for students and to use professional classroom management methods. The fact that the Member frequently yelled in the classroom and used physical force unnecessarily against a student is a source of concern for the Panel. 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 is important, as it will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
21In view of the gravity and repeated nature of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. Although certain facts in the case law presented are distinct from the present case, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is nonetheless similar and confirms that a suspension of the certificate is warranted. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that this kind of professional misconduct is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration will be suspended as of October 26, 2023, that is, 15 days after the decision and order of the Panel.
22The Panel finds that the course on classroom management and anger management 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 her future interactions with students.
23The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 18, 2023
Alain Martel, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Susan Arbour, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- Effective January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws was renumbered to section 26.
- Effective January 20, 2022, section 32 of the by-laws was renumbered to section 26.
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.