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
Luc Chartrand, OCT a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
LUC CHARTRAND (REGISTRATION #189684)
PANEL: Alain Martel, OCT, Chair Susan Arbour, OCT Élaine Legault
HEARD: October 24, 2023
COUNSEL: Christine Lonsdale, for the Ontario College of Teachers Corey Willard, for Luc Chartrand Renée Kopp, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(1) and 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 Student 1 or 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 October 24, 2023, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Luc Chartrand (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.
4To protect the identity of Student 1, who was no longer a minor at the time of the hearing, the Panel also issued a publication ban in accordance with subsections 32.1(1) and 32(7) of the Act. Where a Panel finds that there is the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person that justifies a departure from the general principle that hearings should be open to the public, it can render an order under subsection 32(7) excluding the public from the hearing. Subsection 32.1(1) then allows the Panel to order a publication ban in situations where the Panel has deemed it appropriate to make an order excluding the public under subsection 32(7).
5In this case, Student 1 was the subject of evidence at the hearing. Although Student 1 was over 18 at the time of the hearing, he was under 18 at the time of the Member’s incidents of misconduct. It is particularly important to protect a young student’s right to privacy. Given the media attention surrounding the Member’s actions towards Student 1 and the racist nature of his misconduct, as well as the fact that his behaviour generated controversy among the community, revealing Student 1’s identity could cause him serious harm or injustice regarding his right to privacy and could cause Student 1, a racialized student, to be revictimized. The Panel notes that despite all the coverage in the news and on social media, Student 1’s identity has never been revealed. In short, the Panel feels that protecting Student 1’s identity is extremely important, and that it is not necessary to reveal his identity to ensure the transparency of the legal proceedings.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated November 14, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Luc Chartrand is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
a) he 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);
b) he 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);
c) he 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);
d) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Luc Chartrand 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 Conseil scolaire catholique Providence (the “Board”) as principal of École [XXX] (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
January 8, 2019, School Event
On January 8, 2019, a fundraising event was held in the School gymnasium to support a student at the School who had cancer. At the event, staff and students had their hair shaved to encourage participants to make donations.
The Member and Student 1, a racialized Grade [XXX] student, were among those who had their hair shaved. Student 1 had frizzy hair styled into dreadlocks. The Member picked up Student 1’s shaved locks and put them on his head as a wig. After the event, the Member kept Student 1’s hair in a bag in his office.
October 31, 2019, Incident
To celebrate Halloween, the School encouraged staff and students to dress up in Franco-Ontarian-Hero-themed costumes.
A few days before the incident, the Member told Student 1 that he wanted to dress up as Student 1 for the Halloween event with the intent of celebrating him for his accomplishments. He told him that he had saved his hair with the intention of one day honouring him. Student 1 was surprised by the Member’s request but gave him permission to wear his basketball uniform and hair, as the Member had proposed.
The Member consulted Isabelle Leblanc, the School’s vice-principal, about his plan to dress up as Student 1. Ms. Leblanc advised the Member to talk about it with visible minority colleagues and Student 1’s basketball coach.
On October 31, 2019, the Member dressed up as Student 1 for Halloween. He wore Student 1’s hair again, which he had kept in his office since January 2019. The Member walked around the School wearing Student 1’s hair as a wig and Student 1’s uniform and holding a magazine featuring Student 1 on the cover for his athletic exploits.
A number of comments were made regarding the Member’s conduct, some negative and some positive.
Social Media and News Coverage
On May 28, 2021 (575 days after the incident), a former student of the School posted a photo taken of the Member on October 31, 2019, on her Instagram. In the photo, the Member was wearing Student 1’s hair as a wig.
On the same day, Black Lives Matter [XXX] commented on the incident on its Instagram account. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of those comments and of the photo taken of the Member on October 31, 2019. On May 28, 2021, Black Lives Matter [XXX] posted on its Instagram account an excerpt of a video showing the Member with Student 1’s hair on his head, taken at the School event held on January 8, 2019. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is the video taken on January 8, 2019.
Several articles were published about the incident. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the articles. On May 30, 2021, the Member sent a letter to CBC News [XXX] and CTV News [XXX] in which he explained his perspective and apologized. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the letter.
Board
On May 28, 2021, the Board opened an investigation into the Member’s conduct, during which time the Member was placed on administrative leave with pay.
The Board concluded that the Member’s conduct was inappropriate, controversial and was perceived by many as racist. On September 17, 2021, the Board suspended the Member for three days without pay. The Board also required the Member to complete training courses on racism. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the disciplinary letter dated September 17, 2021.
Workshops and Training Completed
- Between June 2, 2021, and the present, the Member has sought to learn more about systemic discrimination. To date, the Member has completed over 125 hours of voluntary education and training on diversity and inclusion issues. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the databases relating to the courses and personal readings undertaken by the Member.
Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession
- The Member acknowledges that his conduct violated the ethical standards of the teaching profession. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is a copy of the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession.
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 that is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
By this document the Member states that:
a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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’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;
e) he understands that any agreement between him and the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and guilty plea, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee finds that the Member’s acts and omissions constitute professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
8Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 24, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 16 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts show that the Member engaged in unprofessional conduct by wearing Student 1’s (a racialized student) hair as a wig on two occasions. His conduct, which could be perceived as racist, was inappropriate and insensitive.
10The Panel finds that the Member violated section 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 26 of the by-laws, which sets out the ethical standards for the teaching profession. The Admitted Facts show that the Member violated the standard of “Care”, which “includes compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for developing students’ potential.” The Member also violated the standard of “Respect”, which requires members to honour the human dignity and emotional well-being of students. By their conduct, members of the profession must show respect for spiritual and cultural values, as well as for social justice. The Member displayed a great lack of care and empathy towards Student 1 and other students and staff, especially given his position as the School leader. He failed to show compassion when he wore Student 1’s hair as a wig on two occasions. His actions were perceived as having racist connotations and demonstrated a lack of cultural sensitivity and respect for Student 1, a racialized student. Further, given the power imbalance that exists between a principal and students, it was inappropriate for the Member to ask Student 1’s permission to dress up like him for Halloween. He put Student 1 in a very difficult situation. Finally, the Member failed to honour Student 1’s human dignity. Although the Member intended to honour Student 1 on Halloween, the Panel finds that he disregarded Student 1’s emotional well-being.
11The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Clause 264(1)(c) sets out teachers’ moral obligations and is commonly understood as requiring teachers to act as positive role models. The Member violated this obligation when he wore a racialized student’s hair as a wig in front of students at a school event and then again on Halloween. He did not act as a principal, leader or positive role model towards students and staff. The fact that he did not realize that his actions could be perceived by many as degrading and offensive is particularly concerning. As principal, he did not set a good example for students, and he displayed ignorance. It is unacceptable for a school principal to act in such a disrespectful and insensitive manner.
12The Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). His conduct casts doubt on his moral and professional fitness to be a teacher. His inappropriate actions demonstrate a lack of cultural sensitivity and do not reflect the principles of respect and inclusion expected in schools. The Member’s conduct sparked controversy throughout the community. He demonstrated a concerning lack of professional and moral judgment.
13Finally, the Admitted Facts show that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. As a school principal, the Member’s actions reflected negatively on the School, the students, the staff, the parents and the community at large. His conduct provoked strong negative reactions in the community and in the media. As the School’s leader, the Member undermined public confidence in the teaching profession. Principals are expected to create and maintain a climate of inclusiveness and respect with regard to cultural diversity at all times. His lack of cultural sensitivity tarnished the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. DECISION ON PENALTY
14The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 24, 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 of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the office of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three 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) The Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding racism and cultural sensitivity.
b) The Member shall provide written evidence to the Registrar stating that the Member has successfully completed the course. The Committee acknowledges that the Member has fulfilled this requirement as of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee.
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.1 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. Surlan, 2023 ONOCT 47, Ontario College of Teachers v. Gratton-Ruecker, 2022 ONOCT 49, Ontario College of Teachers v. Biondich, 2023 ONOCT 20 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Texeira, 2022 ONOCT 40.
16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. In this case, the aggravating factor is the fact that the Member was the School principal. As a leader, he therefore had a greater responsibility to act appropriately and foster an inclusive and respectful school environment. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted to his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. Further, he wrote a letter of apology that was published in the media, completed several courses and training on racism, and has no previous disciplinary history with the College. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
17The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional, and as such, warrants a reprimand. Members of the profession, especially principals, are expected to set an example for students and to act as role models. As principal, the Member should have known that his actions could be perceived as offensive and racist. 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 severity and insensitive nature of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in them is of a similar underlying nature, confirming 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 it clear that the kind of misconduct that the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s certificate will be suspended effective November 8, 2023, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
19The Panel acknowledges that between June 2, 2021, and October 23, 2023, the period preceding the disciplinary hearing on this matter, the Member took over 125 hours of voluntary education and training courses on racism, diversity, inclusion and cultural sensitivity. Although the Panel would have ordered the Member to take a course on racism and cultural sensitivity based on his misconduct, the Panel accepts the parties’ agreement that this is not necessary in the circumstances. Clearly, the Member has taken substantial steps to rehabilitate and educate himself on issues of racism in particular, and of equity, diversity and inclusion more generally. The Panel therefore acknowledges that the Member has met the requirements regarding the terms, conditions or limitations attached to his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
20The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 26, 2023
Alain Martel, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Susan Arbour, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Élaine Legault Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.