DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION AND REASONS ON FINDING
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
Nasaire Ndoume Angoune, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
NASAIRE NDOUME ANGOUNE (REGISTRATION #561940)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair
Jacqueline Boulianne, OCT
Myrna Tulandi
HEARD: August 30, 2023
Christine Lonsdale, for Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Nasaire Ndoume Angoune
Renée Kopp, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(1) and (3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identities of, or any information that could disclose the identities of Students 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, and 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 30, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Nasaire Ndoume Angoune (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing and did not have legal representation.
3The Member is the subject of two separate proceedings before the Discipline Committee. These proceedings are described in two separate notices of hearing: Notice of Hearing No. 5127 and Notice of Hearing No. 4402 (Exhibit 1), both dated November 18, 2019. Under clause 9.1(1)(c) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Panel agreed to hear the proceedings one after the other. The Panel presided over the hearing regarding Notice of Hearing No. 5127 and reached a decision on the finding on July 7, 2022. The Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision is entitled Ontario College of Teachers v Angoune, 2022 ONOCT 73. The Panel also presided over the penalty hearing, and its Penalty Decision and Reasons for Decision dated October 25, 2022, is entitled Ontario College of Teachers v Angoune, 2022 ONOCT 121. The present hearing deals exclusively with Notice of Hearing No. 4402.
4College Counsel submitted an Affidavit of Beti Poyastro,sworn on August 23, 2023 (Exhibit 3), to establish that the Member was informed of the allegations against him and of the date and time of the hearing. In the affidavit, Ms. Poyastro, a paralegal with McCarthy Tétrault, provides a detailed account of her communications with the Member and proof of service of all required documents. On May 30, 2023, Ms. Poyastro sent an email to the Member advising him of the hearing dates. On the same day, the Member replied to Ms. Poyastro stating that he was unsure as to whether he would be attending the hearing.
5Based on the affidavit, the Panel is satisfied that the Member did receive the Notice of Hearing and all the disclosure documents and was aware of the time and date of the hearing. The Panel delayed the start of the hearing for approximately 15 minutes to allow time for the Member to arrive, but he did not. The Panel therefore held the hearing in his absence.
A. Publication bAN
6The 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. The publication ban applies to Students 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, all of whom were under the age of 18 at the time of the hearing.
7College Counsel also asked the Panel to issue a discretionary order under subsection 32.1(1) of the Act, prohibiting the publication of any information that could disclose the identities of Students 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, all of whom were over 18 years old at the time of the hearing and were the subject of evidence. According to College Counsel, the Panel should issue the publication ban provided for in subsection 32.1(1), because subsection 32.1(3) only protects the identity of persons under the age of 18 at the time of the hearing, and although these students were under 18 at the time of the incidents in question, they were not under 18 at the time of the hearing. They therefore do not benefit from the protection of subsection 32.1(3), but their identities must nevertheless be protected.
8The Panel granted the request to protect the identities of Students 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and issued a publication ban under subsections 32(7) and 32.1(1) of the Act. Subsection 32(7) gives the Panel the authority to make an order excluding the public from a hearing if, in its opinion, the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person justifies a departure from the general principle that hearings should be open to the public. Subsection 32.1(1) allows the Panel to issue a publication ban in situations where it makes an order excluding the public under subsection 32(7).
9According to the Panel, disclosing any information that could reveal the identities of Students 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 could potentially infringe on their right to privacy. Although these students were over 18 years of age at the time of the hearing, they were still young adults who were all under 18 at the time of the Member’s incidents of misconduct. According to the Panel, it would not be fair to disclose the identities of Students 1 to 10 when the other students, who are also the subject of evidence, are protected by a publication ban. The Panel noted that disclosing the identities of Students 1 to 10 could also potentially disclose the identities of Students 11 to 17. As such, the Panel deemed it important to make a discretionary order under subsections 32(7) and 32.1(1) to protect all the student witnesses or those who are the subject of evidence at the hearing. Lastly, the Panel noted that it was not necessary to disclose the identities of these students to ensure the transparency of the Member’s legal proceedings. The Panel therefore issued the order to protect the identities, and any information that could disclose the identities of Students 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
B. OVERVIEW
10During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member was working as an occasional teacher. From January 1 to February 28, 2018, he taught Grade [XXX] at École secondaire catholique [XXX] (the “School”). During this period, the College alleges that the Member often yelled at students and failed to manage his class, that he allowed students to enter and leave the classroom unsupervised, that he failed to intervene when students were looking at pornography in the classroom or when they were roughhousing, and that he did not allow students who were injured to leave the classroom to tend to their injuries. The College also alleges that the Member used his cell phone during teaching periods and made inappropriate comments to students.
11The Panel must determine whether the allegations have been proven on a balance of probabilities and, if so, whether the Member’s conduct supports a finding of professional misconduct. The Panel finds that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct for having contravened the provisions of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). At the request of College Counsel, the Panel withdrew the allegations that the Member had contravened the provisions of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.1) and 1(7.2). No evidence was adduced with respect to the allegation of incompetence, and the Panel therefore limits its findings to the allegations of professional misconduct.
12The Panel’s reasons for decision are as follows.
C. THE ALLEGATIONS
13The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated November 18, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence as defined in the Act in that:
a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5)1;
b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1)2;
d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2)3;
e) he failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
f) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
g) 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);
h) 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);
i) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Nasaire Ndoume Angoune is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-est (the “Board”) as a short-term occasional teacher.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student at École secondaire catholique [XXX] in Ottawa, Ontario.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] student at École secondaire catholique [XXX] in Ottawa, Ontario.
From on or about January 1, 2018, to on or about February 28, 2018, when he was teaching at École secondaire catholique [XXX], the Member:
a) frequently yelled at students;
b) failed to manage his class, including but not limited to:
(i) he allowed students to enter and leave the classroom unsupervised during teaching periods;
(ii) he failed to intervene when students were looking at pornography on their cell phones during teaching periods;
(iii) he failed to intervene when students were roughhousing;
(iv) he did not allow students who were injured to leave the classroom to tend to their injuries;
(v) he used his cell phone for personal reasons during teaching periods.
c) failed to react when Student 1 tried to [XXX] himself and allegedly said: “I want [XXX]”;
d) made inappropriate comments to students, including, but not limited to:
(i) “You are a devil’s advocate” and “you’re not good, you’re not the best in the class” to Student 2;
(ii) after Student 2 left the classroom crying, said to the students that Student 2 “was mean”;
(iii) in front of students, told a fellow teacher that this was the weakest, most disorganized and most disrespectful group in the school.
D. The member’s plea
14Since the Member was not present at the hearing, the Panel assumed that he denied the allegations in the Notice of Hearing.
E. THE EVIDENCE
15The College produced oral and documentary evidence in support of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The relevant elements of the testimony are outlined in greater detail below, in the Panel’s Reasons for Decision. The College’s evidence is summarized below.
(1) Oral Testimony
16The College called three witnesses: (1) Josée Beausoleil (“Ms. Beausoleil”), vice-principal of the School at the time of the alleged incidents; (2) Student 11, a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class during the 2017-2018 academic year; and (3) Rémi Davidson (“Mr. Davidson”), a Special Education teacher at the School at the time of the alleged incidents.
17For the reasons described in detail below, the Panel finds that the testimony of all three witnesses was credible and consistent in all material respects. All three witnesses had good recall given that the incidents in question took place over six years ago. Although some of the witnesses (such as Ms. Beausoleil) did not observe some of the incidents involving the Member, their testimony was consistent with the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence of the other witnesses. The oral evidence presented by the witnesses was reasonable and plausible.
18As the Member decided not to participate in the hearing, no testimony was presented in his defence.
(a) Ms. Beausoleil’s Testimony
19At the time of the hearing, Ms. Beausoleil was the School principal. At the time of the incidents in question (during the 2017-2018 academic year), she was vice-principal of Grades [XXX] and [XXX] at the School. She was responsible for approximately 30 staff members and 500 students. Ms. Beausoleil testified about her role as vice-principal. She was responsible for ensuring the safety, well-being and learning of the students, as well as supporting the staff. She knew the Member, who had been hired as a short-term occasional teacher for a Grade [XXX] class to replace a retired teacher.
20Since it was part of her role to investigate incidents and interview students involved, Ms. Beausoleil testified regarding several of the Member’s incidents of misconduct alleged by the College. She said that during the Member’s time as a short-term occasional teacher, she received several incident reports from students. An incident report is a document usually written by the student and forwarded to the principal to report a dispute or situation that took place at school or in the classroom. Ms. Beausoleil would then ask the students to clarify certain points and add their verbatim responses to the incident report. She testified that several students filed incident reports about the Member including allegations that he frequently yelled at students, left students outside the classroom unsupervised, would not let students who had injured themselves go to the office, used his cell phone in the classroom, and that students were looking at pornography in the classroom. Ms. Beausoleil testified that she also took handwritten notes in her own notebook during her investigations.
21Ms. Beausoleil also testified that, on February 8, 2018, when she walked past the Member’s classroom, she noticed that it was very noisy, there was a great deal of litter in the classroom and one student’s neck was bleeding. She said that she heard the Member’s raised voice and that he yelled at her when she came into the classroom following an incident on February 16, 2018. Ms. Beausoleil also testified about complaints she received from several staff members involving the Member. Lastly, she testified about her meetings with the Member, including the types of questions she asked him about the misconduct alleged by students and staff members.
(b) Student 11’s Testimony
22Student 11 was a student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class during the 2017-2018 academic year. Student 11 was involved in several alleged incidents of misconduct, as he was in the class and was able to directly observe the incidents involving the Member.
23During his testimony, Student 11 said that the Member often yelled at students in the classroom. He testified that there had been several fights between students in the classroom and that the Member had ignored them. Instead of intervening himself, he asked Student 11 to stop the fights between his classmates. Student 11 explained that two students in particular often roughhoused in the classroom. He also testified about one incident where Student 1 tried to [XXX] himself in class and allegedly said, “I want [XXX].” He said he saw Student 1 attempting to [XXX] himself with [XXX] and a soft [XXX] and the Member did nothing and more or less ignored Student 1. Lastly, Student 11 testified about the Member’s poor classroom management, specifically his failure to intervene when some students were looking at pornography in the classroom.
(c) Rémi Davidson’s Testimony
24At the time of the hearing, Mr. Davidson was the Special Education Coordinator at the School. During the 2017-2018 academic year, he was a Special Education Teacher at the School. He has approximately 25 years of Special Education experience and in this role, he was responsible for providing support to Special Education students and other teachers, either in his office or directly in the classroom.
25Mr. Davidson testified that he observed some students in the Member’s class who were unsupervised in the hallway during the teaching period. He testified about an email he sent to Ms. Beausoleil describing his observations of the Member’s classroom. He stated that the classroom was rowdy. Students were all over, shouting at each other and at the Member. He testified that the Member described his students as “the weakest, most disorganized and most disrespectful group in the school.” Mr. Davidson added that following this comment he remained in the classroom for the teaching period and provided the Member with some classroom management strategies. Lastly, he testified that on another date, on or about February 20 or 22, 2018, he walked past the Member’s classroom and could hear a commotion. He could see that the Member had not implemented any of the recommended classroom management strategies.
(2) Documentary Evidence
26The College entered into evidence a Book of Documents (Exhibit 4) that contained various documents, including (1) the incident reports from several students and staff members; (2) Ms. Beausoleil’s handwritten notes; (3) the notes from questioning outlines used in meetings with the Member, dated February 12, February 14 and March 2, 2018; and (4) text messages and email correspondence between Ms. Beausoleil and staff members.
F. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
27College Counsel requested that the Panel withdraw the allegations that the Member had contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.1) and 1(7.2). The College argued that a better approach would be to make a finding that the Member had breached subsection 1(14), because finding that his conduct violated both subsections 1(14) and 1(5) would be redundant. The College also put forth, regarding the withdrawal of the allegations pertaining to subsections 1(7.1) and 1(7.2), that it was no longer relevant to retain these allegations in view of the previous decision of the Disciplinary Committee regarding the Member and the insufficient evidence presented by the College during the hearing.
28After recounting the facts in support of each allegation of professional misconduct against the Member, the College submitted that the evidence presented to the Panel established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member had contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19), as alleged in the Notice of Hearing, and that the Panel ought to find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
29In her submissions, College Counsel referred to the evidence of her three witnesses and the documentary evidence that corroborated their testimony. She put forth that the witnesses were credible. The College also pointed out that some students had been unable to testify at the hearing. Student 2 had not responded to College Counsel’s request and Student 1 was not comfortable testifying (Exhibit 3, pp. 4). However, the College argued that the Panel could refer to the documentary evidence, including the incident reports of Students 1 and 2, which describe their observations regarding the Member’s conduct at school. The College maintained that the incident reports corroborated the testimony of Ms. Beausoleil and Student 11.
G. DeCISION on the finding
(1) Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof
30The onus is on the College to prove the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 SCR 41; that is, on a balance of probabilities.
(2) Decision
31Having considered the evidence, the onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(11), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
H. REASONS FOR DECISION
32The Panel carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this matter. In the reasons that follow, the Panel comments only on the aspects of the evidence that best correspond to the allegations in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel first sets out its findings of fact, then explains how these factual findings led to its finding of professional misconduct against the Member.
(1) Factual Findings
a) Contested Facts
i. Allegation 5(a)
33The Panel finds that the Member frequently yelled at students, as alleged in item 5(a) of the Notice of Hearing.
34The Panel notes that there is considerable evidence to support this allegation, including documentary evidence, the testimony of Ms. Beausoleil, the testimony of Student 11 and the testimony of Mr. Davidson.
35First, the Panel notes that during Ms. Beausoleil’s testimony, she stated that she had received several incident reports from students regarding the Member. Several students noted that the Member often yelled in the classroom, and a few even mentioned that they experienced headaches from his raised voice. The Panel notes that the incident reports of Student 13 (Exhibit 4, Tab 7, pp. 28-29), Student 4 (Exhibit 4, Tab 10, pp. 45-46), Student 17 (Exhibit 4, Tab 11, pp. 48), Student 16 (Exhibit 4, Tab 11, pp. 50-51), Student 11 (Exhibit 4, Tab 14, pp. 75-80) and Student 15 (Exhibit 4, Tab 16, pp. 93) all refer to the Member yelling in the classroom or yelling at them.
36Ms. Beausoleil also testified to having heard the Member’s raised voice on February 8, 2018, as she was walking past his classroom on the way to another class. She noticed students sitting on desks, talking loudly, and the Member sitting at his desk yelling at students to put their chairs on the desks. Ms. Beausoleil entered the classroom, noticed several items of litter on the floor and asked the students to pick them up. The students then told Ms. Beausoleil that Student 13’s neck was bleeding and that the Member hadn’t let him go get a bandage. The Member began shouting that this was not true. Ms. Beausoleil’s testimony is supported by the documentary evidence, including her own notes (Exhibit 4, Tab 17, pp. 96-97).
37Ms. Beausoleil also testified regarding a second incident that took place on February 16, 2018. After receiving a text message from another teacher informing her that the Member’s classroom was very noisy, Ms. Beausoleil headed towards his classroom and noticed several students outside the classroom having a discussion with two other teachers about an incident involving the Member that had occurred in class. The students explained to Ms. Beausoleil that the Member had yelled at Student 2. While the students were telling her this, the Member was talking very loudly and started shouting at Ms. Beausoleil. Ms. Beausoleil’s testimony is consistent with her handwritten notes, which she recorded on the day of the incident (Exhibit 4, Tab 17, pp. 100-101). The Panel notes that her testimony is also supported by external evidence, including her text and email correspondence with a teacher named Mr. Jegerlehner (Exhibit 4, Tab 18, pp. 104-105).
38In addition, the Panel accepts the testimony of Student 11 regarding the Member’s raised voice. As a student in the Member’s classroom, Student 11 was present and was able to observe several of the incidents in question. Student 11 explained that the Member naturally has a very loud voice, but that he often shouted at students. He further noted that, although the Member seemed to have a naturally loud voice, he could notice the change in tone when he shouted, which happened quite often.
39Lastly, the Panel relies on the testimony of Mr. Davidson. He stated that, on February 16, 2018, he had come across students from the Member’s class who were in the hallway unsupervised, so he headed towards the classroom and could hear the commotion. He noted that the Member was not in control of his class and was shouting at the students. Mr. Davidson said that he had to intervene to control the class and that at the end of the teaching period, he provided the Member with some classroom management strategies, one of which was to refrain from yelling. Mr. Davidson also testified that around February 20 or 22, 2018, he went to the Member’s classroom because he could again hear a commotion from the hallway. He observed the Member talking loudly and yelling while the students were talking. The Panel notes that Mr. Davidson’s oral evidence is also supported by the documentary evidence, including the email correspondence between Mr. Davidson and Ms. Beausoleil on March 6, 2018 (Exhibit 4, Tab 18, pp. 109). Mr. Davidson testified that this was the first time in his more than 25-year career that he had sent an email to the principal about another teacher at the School.
40In short, the Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member often yelled at his students. The Panel notes that in the documentary evidence, including the questioning outline used for the meeting with the Member on February 12, 2018 (Exhibit 4, Tab 19, pp. 114), the Member denied yelling at the students. Moreover, the Panel notes that based on the questioning outlines, the Member denied most of the alleged incidents. However, the Panel gives little weight to the Member’s responses in the document, given the considerable testimony to the contrary. Since the Member did not appear at the hearing, the Panel was unable to assess his credibility. The evidence otherwise supports the allegation that he often yelled at the students. The Panel gives significant weight to the students’ incident reports, even though several of them did not testify at the hearing, since the documentary evidence corroborates the oral evidence presented by the College’s other witnesses. The Panel has previously found that all three witnesses were credible and all made the corroborating observations.
ii. Allegation 5(b)(i)
41The Panel finds it is more likely than not that the Member failed in his duty to manage his class when he allowed students to enter and leave the classroom unsupervised during teaching periods, as alleged in item 5(b)(i) of the Notice of Hearing.
42The Panel refers to Mr. Davidson’s testimony that he observed students from the Member’s class walking around unsupervised in the hallway during a teaching period. He said that on February 16, 2018, he noticed three students wandering in the hallway and asked them why they were there. They claimed that the Member had told them to go into the hallway. Mr. Davidson decided to head to the Member’s class. Despite the classroom door being closed, he could hear the commotion inside, and when he went in, he observed that the Member did not have control of his class and was yelling at the students. Mr. Davidson had to take over to restore order in the classroom. His testimony is also supported by the external evidence, including the email correspondence between himself and Ms. Beausoleil on March 6, 2018 (Exhibit 4, Tab 18, pp. 109).
43The Panel also refers to the documentary evidence, including the email from Roxanne Pelletier to Ms. Beausoleil on March 6, 2018 (Exhibit 4, Tab 18, pp. 108). Ms. Beausoleil explained in her testimony that Roxanne Pelletier was an experienced Special Education teacher at the School who expressed concerns about the Member by email. Specifically, she described how some students in the Member’s class would leave the classroom without permission to go work in her room, though the Member had not called to let her know (Exhibit 4, Tab 18, pp. 108). From this email, the Panel can infer that the Member was letting students leave his classroom unsupervised.
44In addition, the Panel relies on Student 13’s incident report, which states that the Member told Student 14 to leave the classroom and refused to let him back in (Exhibit 4, Tab 7, pp. 28-29).
45The Panel also relies on the testimony of Ms. Beausoleil, who indicated that she met with Student 13 following his incident report to ask some additional questions. She said that whenever she interviewed a student, she would ask clarifying questions and note the student’s answers verbatim on the incident report. The Panel notes that Ms. Beausoleil wrote specific questions in the students’ incident reports to obtain as much information as possible, which reassures the Panel as to the integrity of her investigative process regarding the alleged incidents.
46The Panel therefore finds there is ample evidence to conclude that the Member allowed students to leave the classroom unsupervised, which constitutes a breach of his duty to manage his classroom. Mr. Davidson’s oral evidence is supported by the documentary evidence, the email correspondence (including the email sent by Roxanne Pelletier), and Student 13’s incident report. No contradictory evidence was presented by the Member during the hearing.
iii. Allegation 5(b)(ii)
47The Panel finds that the Member failed in his duty to manage his class by not intervening when students were looking at pornography on their cell phones during the teaching period, as alleged in item 5(b)(ii) of the Notice of Hearing.
48The Panel relies on the testimony of Ms. Beausoleil, who said that she had received incident reports from students, including one from Student 4, which stated that two other students in the class were looking at pornography on a cell phone and inviting other students to join them. Student 4 described getting up to look at the screen and that the Member didn’t seem to know what the students were doing (Exhibit 4, Tab 8, pp. 31-35). Ms. Beausoleil explained the diagram on Student 4’s incident report. During her interview with Student 4, she wanted to understand where the students looking at the pornography were located in relation to the Member and had therefore drawn a diagram of the classroom. She testified that, according to Student 4’s explanations, the Member was seated at the front of the classroom, with a few desks separating him from the students looking at the pornography. In addition, Student 5’s incident report states that two students were looking at pornography in the classroom with other students surrounding them to look as well (Exhibit 4, Tab 8, pp. 35-38).
49The Panel also refers to Student 11’s testimony that he saw two students listening to pornography in the classroom without the Member intervening. Student 11 also gave a clear answer to the Panel’s question as to whether there were other incidents of students looking at other content on their cell phones in the classroom. He said students sometimes watched YouTube or looked at Instagram during teaching periods and the Member did nothing because he himself was often using his cell phone in class.
50The Panel has no reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of Ms. Beausoleil and Student 11. Ms. Beausoleil testified that she received the incident reports from the students and asked them specific questions to obtain more information. The Panel notes that Ms. Beausoleil’s notes on the students’ incident reports are very precise, which it finds supports the integrity of the evidence. It is unlikely that three students (Students 4, 5 and 11) would fabricate a lie that students were looking at pornography in the classroom. The Panel is further reassured by the fact that the testimony of Ms. Beausoleil and Student 11 is corroborated by the documentary evidence. The Panel notes that it is unclear whether the Member knew that the students were looking at pornography, but it is clear from the evidence presented that several students were gathered around the desks of the two students in question and that the Member failed to intervene. Regardless of what the students were looking at on their cell phones, the Member failed in his duty to manage his class when he neglected to intervene. The Panel notes that the situation is exacerbated by the fact that it involved pornography.
iv. Allegation 5(b)(iii)
51The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member failed to intervene when students were roughhousing and thus failed in his duty to manage his class, as alleged in item 5(b)(iii) of the Notice of Hearing.
52Student 11 testified on this subject. He said that there was often roughhousing between students in the Member’s class, especially involving Student 1, and the Member did nothing to intervene. On several occasions, the Member told Student 11 to stop the students’ roughhousing. Student 11’s oral evidence corroborates the documentary evidence, i.e., his incident report (Exhibit 4, Tab 14, pp. 75-80).
53The Panel notes that in Student 11’s incident report, Ms. Beausoleil’s handwriting in red ink shows that she asked specific questions during her interview with Student 11 about the students who were roughhousing in class and whether the Member had seen what was going on. In the incident report, we can see Student 11’s response to this question: “He was sitting in his chair doing nothing. I saw him watching the fight” (Exhibit 4, Tab 14, pp. 78).
54The Panel is satisfied with the evidence presented by the College regarding this allegation and finds Student 11 is a credible witness. Moreover, when the Panel asked Student 11 during his testimony whether the students in question would roughhouse in classes other than the Member’s, or during breaks or at lunch, Student 11 said that their fights tended to take place in the Member’s class. According to the Panel, Student 11 demonstrated good recall and was consistent throughout his testimony.
v. Allegation 5(b)(iv)
55The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Member did not allow injured students to leave the classroom to tend to their injuries, as alleged in item 5(b)(iv) of the Notice of Hearing.
56The Panel referred to Ms. Beausoleil’s testimony, specifically the incident reports she received from a few students regarding this incident. First, in Student 6’s incident report dated February 8, 2018, the student states that she hurt her shoulder during the break and when she was back in class, she realized that her arm was bleeding. She asked the Member if she could leave the classroom and he told her to wait and sit down (Exhibit 4, Tab 9, pp. 40). Student 7’s incident report corroborates Student 6’s. It states that Students 6 and 13 were bleeding in the classroom and the Member would not allow them to go to the office (Exhibit 4, Tab 9, pp. 42-43).
57Ms. Beausoleil testified that Student 13 also told her that he was bleeding in class and the Member would not let him go to the office for treatment. She said that she was in the Member’s class on the day of that incident and made note of it in her personal notebook (Exhibit 4, Tab 17, pp. 96). She said that on February 8, 2018, she was walking towards the classroom next to the Member’s when she saw the students sitting on the desks and could hear them talking very loudly. When she entered the classroom, several students told her that Student 13’s neck was bleeding and the Member would not let him go get a bandage. They said that Student 6 was also bleeding and again, the Member had refused to let her leave the class for treatment. Ms. Beausoleil also noted in her personal notebook that the Member denied having seen any blood, even though Ms. Beausoleil could see a bandage on Student 13’s wound with a trace of blood coming through (Exhibit 4, Tab 17, pp. 97).
58According to the questioning outline for the meeting with the Member on February 12, 2018 (during which Ms. Beausoleil questioned the Member about these incidents), the Member was specifically asked how he ensures the health and safety of the students and might he have refused to allow students to leave the class, regardless of the situation. The Member replied that he had refused to allow some students to leave the class, explaining that one student had told him that his neck was bleeding, but when he asked the other students if they could see any blood, they allegedly said no (Exhibit 4, Tab 19, pp. 114). The Member reportedly told the other student whose shoulder was bleeding to wait until he had finished taking attendance so the student could hand in the attendance sheets to the office at the same time.
59Despite the Member’s explanations, to which the Panel gives little weight given that his evidence was not given under oath and was not tested in cross-examination, the Panel finds that the overall evidence demonstrates that the Member refused to allow injured students to leave the classroom for treatment. The Member’s explanations do not change the fact that he prevented injured students from tending to their injuries; rather, he offers unconvincing excuses to justify his poor decisions.
vi. Allegation 5(b)(v)
60The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member used his cell phone for personal reasons during teaching periods, as alleged in item 5(b)(v) of the Notice of Hearing.
61The Panel finds that several pieces of evidence presented by the College support this allegation. First, Ms. Beausoleil testified that she communicated several times with the Member regarding the cell phone use policy. Her handwritten notes dated March 6, 2018, state that she informed the Member that the cell phone use policy was posted on the School website and that he could discuss it with another teacher for more information (Exhibit 4, Tab 17, pp. 102).
62Ms. Beausoleil also testified regarding the incident reports she received from students claiming that the Member often used his cell phone in the classroom. For example, Student 10’s incident report, dated February 16, 2018, states that the Member “got going on his cell phone and didn’t help the others when they raised their hands” (Exhibit 4, Tab 13, pp. 70-71). Student 2’s incident report, dated February 16, 2018, also claims that the Member was using his cell phone (Exhibit 4, Tab 12, pp. 59). Student 9’s incident report, dated February 16, 2018, states that she saw the Member using his phone on the sly (Exhibit 4, Tab 12, pp. 65-66). In addition, on Student 9’s incident report, Ms. Beausoleil asked her what she saw and noted Student 9’s response: “When he had finished explaining the work, he would sit at the desk in front and pull out his phone under the desk” (Exhibit 4, Tab 12, pp. 68).
63The Panel also accepted the testimony of Student 11 on this subject. Student 11 said that the Member often used his cell phone in the classroom. His testimony therefore corroborates the incident reports of several students.
64In addition, the Panel finds, based on the questioning outline for the meeting on March 2, 2018, that the Member admitted to using his cell phone in the classroom (Exhibit 4, Tab 21, pp. 134). In Ms. Beausoleil’s testimony, she said that she met with the Member several times with other staff present (including human resources, union representative, the principal) and asked him about the alleged incidents of misconduct. One of the questions put to the Member was about the use of his cell phone in the classroom, to which he replied, “I check the time. The periods are difficult. I go over time. To stay on schedule” (Exhibit 4, Tab 21, pp. 134). On this basis, the Panel finds that the Member admitted looking at his cell phone during teaching periods.
65In short, the Panel notes that several students reported that the Member was using his cell phone in the classroom. Although the Panel heard only the testimony of one student, Student 11, his testimony corroborated the incident reports of the other students. In the Panel’s opinion, it is unlikely that so many students would fabricate a lie and then report it independently to the vice-principal.
vii. Allegation 5(c)
66The Panel finds that the College has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member failed to react when Student 1 allegedly tried to [XXX] himself and said, “I want [XXX],” as alleged in item 5(c) of the Notice of Hearing.
67The Panel notes that Student 1 was not available to testify. Relying on the Affidavit of Beti Poyastro, sworn on August 23, 2023 (Exhibit 3), Student 1 confirmed with College Counsel that he did not feel comfortable testifying at the hearing (Exhibit 3, pp. 4).
68Despite this fact, the Panel accepted the testimony of Student 11 regarding his observations of the alleged incident. Student 11 clearly explained that he had seen Student 1 attempt to [XXX] himself with [XXX] and a soft [XXX] and say “I want [XXX]” in class. Student 11 then approached Student 1 to talk to him and offer help. Student 11 testified that the Member did nothing and ignored Student 1. Student 11 stated that he filled out an incident report describing the situation and discussed it with Ms. Beausoleil. His incident report effectively corroborates his testimony (Exhibit 4, Tab 14, pp. 75-76).
69Although the Panel considers that Student 11 was a very credible witness and was consistent throughout his testimony, it is not clear whether the Member saw or heard Student 1. It is clear, in the Panel’s view, that Student 11 saw and heard Student 1. However, the Panel has no details as to Student 1’s location in the classroom in relation to the Member, or to how loudly Student 1’s spoke when he allegedly made this statement. Without these important details, the Panel cannot determine whether the Member actually saw or heard Student 1. The Panel therefore finds there is insufficient evidence to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the Member failed to react when Student 1 allegedly tried to [XXX] himself in the classroom and said, “I want [XXX].”
viii. Allegation 5(d)(i) and (ii)
70As allegations 5(d)(i) and (ii) both concern incidents involving the Member and Student 2, the Panel has chosen to address them together.
71The Panel considers it more likely than not that the Member made inappropriate comments to students, including telling Student 2, “You are a devil’s advocate” and “you’re not good, you are not the best in the class” and saying, after Student 2 left the classroom crying, that Student 2 was “mean”, as alleged in items 5(d)(i) and (ii) of the Notice of Hearing.
72In reviewing the available evidence, the Panel first refers to the Affidavit of Beti Poyastro, sworn on August 23, 2023, which states that Student 2 did not respond to College Counsel’s request to testify (Exhibit 3, pp. 4). In the absence of this testimony, the Panel relies on the testimony of Ms. Beausoleil and the documentary evidence, including the incident reports of Students 2, 9 and 10.
73Ms. Beausoleil testified that, following the classroom incident on February 16, 2018, Student 2 was so shaken that he needed the secretary’s help to complete his incident report. After Student 2 completed the report, Ms. Beausoleil met with him and he recounted the incident in the classroom. Student 2 had been working on an assignment in class and when he finished, he asked the Member to correct it. The Member told him there were mistakes in his work and allegedly shouted in his face that it was poorly done. Student 2 had started crying because he was at his wits’ end and the Member had called him “a devil’s advocate”. Ms. Beausoleil’s testimony is also consistent with Student 2’s incident report (Exhibit 4, Tab 12, pp. 59-64). Even though Student 2 did not testify and Ms. Beausoleil’s testimony is hearsay, the Panel accepts Ms. Beausoleil’s evidence in this regard and finds it unlikely that Student 2 would fabricate this type of lie and be so emotional about it if the incident had not actually occurred. In fact, Ms. Beausoleil testified that Student 2 was a good student, serious, committed and focused on his studies.
74In addition, two other incident reports made by students corroborate Student 2’s. Student 9’s incident report, dated February 16, 2018, states that Student 2 had quickly completed an assignment and asked the Member to correct it. The Member then allegedly shouted at Student 2 to sit down and that he was “a devil’s advocate”. A second assignment was then handed out, and Student 2 once again completed his work quickly. When he said he had finished his work, the Member started shouting at him again. Student 2 burst into tears and left the classroom. Student 9 also stated in her incident report, “(Student 2) has been holding on to all those negative remarks that the Member made to him, like ‘you’re not good, you are not the best in the class,’ etc. for a long time” (Exhibit 4, Tab 12, pp. 65-68).
75Student 10’s incident report, dated February 16, 2018, is also consistent with those of Students 2 and 9 regarding the incident. Although Student 10’s incident report makes no mention of the Member’s comments to Student 2, the facts set out in his report corroborate Student 9’s report as to how the situation unfolded; that is to say that the Member yelled at Student 2 after he had finished his assignment and Student 2 allegedly started crying and left the classroom (Exhibit 4, Tab 13, pp. 70-73).
76Lastly, although the Panel did not hear the testimony of Student 2 firsthand, the incident reports of Students 2, 9 and 10 are consistent with Ms. Beausoleil’s testimony. The Panel finds it unlikely that three students would fabricate a lie about the alleged incident. The Panel also gives considerable weight to Ms. Beausoleil’s testimony, specifically to her description of Student 2’s behaviour. She described him as a student who was very focused on his studies, a good student, whom she trusted to tell her the truth about the comments made by the Member.
ix. Allegation 5(d)(iii)
77The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member made inappropriate comments in front of students and told a fellow teacher that his class was the weakest, most disorganized and most disrespectful group in the school, as alleged in item 5(d)(iii) of the Notice of Hearing.
78The Panel relies on Mr. Davidson’s testimony. He stated that he met with the Member on several occasions to offer advice and support. Mr. Davidson observed the Member’s conduct in the classroom when he had to intervene on two occasions because the classroom was noisy and students were in the hallway unsupervised. He stated that on February 16, 2018, he had to intervene in the Member’s class when he noticed three students in the hallway unsupervised. He could hear the commotion in the classroom from the hallway and when he entered the classroom, he observed that the Member did not have control of the classroom. Mr. Davidson testified that he attempted to speak up to take control of the class and the Member interrupted him and said loudly, in front of the students, that this was the weakest, most disorganized and most disrespectful group in the school. Following these remarks, Mr. Davidson remained in the classroom until the end of the period and then provided the Member with some classroom management strategies.
79Mr. Davidson testified that he wrote an email to Ms. Beausoleil on March 6, 2018, explaining the situation and expressing his concerns (Exhibit 4, Tab 18, pp. 109). The Panel notes that Mr. Davidson’s email to Ms. Beausoleil is consistent with his oral testimony. Mr. Davidson also pointed out that this was the first time in his career that he had sent this type of email about another teacher at the School.
80The Panel finds that Mr. Davidson was a credible witness and that his oral evidence was consistent with the documentary evidence. He has over 25 years of experience as a Special Education teacher and the Panel has no reason to doubt the veracity of his testimony. Indeed, Mr. Davidson testified that the Member’s remarks shocked him to the point where he felt the need to send an email to the vice-principal expressing his concerns. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the evidence presented by the College establishes that the Member made inappropriate comments to students, including telling Mr. Davidson, in front of the students, that his was the weakest, most disorganized and most disrespectful group in the entire school.
(2) Legal Conclusions
81The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct as set out above supports a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member:
abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
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);
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);
engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
a) The Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7)
82The Panel finds that the Member abused students verbally. It was proven that the Member often yelled at students in the classroom. The Panel also found that the Member made inappropriate comments to students. In particular, the Member told Student 2 that he was “a devil’s advocate” and that he was “mean”, which made the student cry. The Member also said, in front of all the students, that this was the “weakest, most disorganized and most disrespectful group in the school.” Teachers should never yell at students, even when they are experiencing difficulties relating to classroom management. Furthermore, as a person in a position of trust and authority, it was unacceptable for the Member to make inappropriate comments to students. It is demeaning and damaging to a student’s self-esteem to receive such comments from a teacher. These kinds of remarks are not conducive to learning and show poor judgment on the Member’s part. His behaviour can therefore be categorized as verbal abuse.
b) The Member failed to supervise adequately a person who is under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11)
83The Panel finds that two sets of facts support this finding of professional misconduct. First, it was proven that the Member failed to adequately supervise students whom he left unsupervised in the hallway outside the classroom during the teaching period. Secondly, the facts establish that the Member failed to adequately supervise students who were roughhousing and looking at pornography in the classroom. The Member also used his cell phone in the classroom during the teaching period, which distracted him from his supervisory responsibilities as a teacher.
84Teachers are responsible for ensuring the physical well-being and safety of students, which the Member failed to do on several occasions. In addition to the incidents noted above, which demonstrate a clear lack of adequate student supervision, the Member endangered Student 11 by asking him to get involved in other students’ roughhousing. Student supervision is the teacher’s duty and should never be delegated to students. It was completely unacceptable for the Member to tell a student to intervene in a dispute he should have stopped himself. By engaging in this type of conduct, the Member failed to adequately supervise students under his professional supervision.
c) The Member failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14)
85The Panel finds that the Member violated the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession as set out in section 26.02 of the College by-laws. Specifically, the Member breached the standards of “Care” and “Respect”. The standard of “Care” includes “compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for developing students’ potential.” “Respect” requires members of the profession to honour students’ “human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development.”
86The Member showed a lack of care for his students by failing to ensure their safety and physical well-being. His poor classroom management and supervision did nothing to develop his students’ potential. His frequent use of his cell phone during teaching periods instead of being attentive to his students’ needs demonstrated a lack of interest in his students and their learning. The fact that he often yelled at students also demonstrated a lack of care for them.
87With regard to the ethical standard of “Respect”, the Member did not demonstrate commitment to students’ well-being and in no way honoured their human dignity. He was disrespectful towards his students when he made inappropriate comments about them, especially his inappropriate comments targeting Student 2. In addition, he was disrespectful towards all his students when he described them as “the weakest, most disorganized and most disrespectful group in the school.” Collectively, the facts demonstrate that the Member violated the Ethical Standards of the Teaching Profession.
d) The Member 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)
88Clause 264(1)(c) of the Education Act stipulates that teachers must demonstrate a number of moral principles and virtues as part of their professional duties, which is generally interpreted to mean that teachers must act as a positive role model for students. The Panel notes that there is ample evidence that the Member did not act as a positive role model and did not model the values of the teaching profession. For instance, he failed to set a good example for students when he frequently yelled at them. The inappropriate comments about his students demonstrate behaviour contrary to the values and principles of the teaching profession. The fact that the Member used his cell phone for personal reasons during teaching periods ran counter to the behaviour expected of a teacher responsible for setting an example in the classroom. Thus, the Member did not act as a positive role model for his students.
e) 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)
89The Panel finds the Member’s conduct as a whole was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The incident in which the Member called Student 2 “a devil’s advocate” and “mean”, and his other inappropriate remark about his entire class (that they were the weakest, most disorganized and most disrespectful group in the school), cast serious doubt on his moral fitness to perform his duties as a teacher. The Member’s incidences of poor classroom management constitute dishonourable acts, including his failure to supervise his students inside and outside the classroom. Further, the use of his personal cell phone in the classroom demonstrates poor professional judgment on his part. As a teacher, he was expected to set a good example, which he failed to do. For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the Member contravened the provisions of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
f) The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)
90The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. His conduct as a whole undermined public trust in the teaching profession. Parents and the public expect children to be adequately supervised at school and to be treated with respect by their teachers. Teachers are expected to implement appropriate strategies to ensure classroom management and effective teaching and learning in the classroom.
I. PENALTY
91The Tribunals’ Office will set a later date for the Panel to hear the parties’ submissions with respect to penalty.
Date: November 10, 2023
Marlène Marwah
Chair, Discipline Panel
Jacqueline Boulianne, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Myrna Tulandi
Member, Discipline Panel