Ontario College of Teachers v. MacRae, 2023 ONOCT 81

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v MacRae 2023 ONOCT 81

Date: 2023-11-13

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

Ian Norman MacRae, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

IAN NORMAN MACRAE (REGISTRATION #209050)

PANEL: Hanno Weinberger, OCT, Chair Wanda Percival, OCT Emile Ramlochan

HEARD: November 1, 2023

Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers Joshua D. Lerner, for Ian Norman MacRae Julie Maciura, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on November 1, 2023, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Ian Norman MacRae (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation.

3The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

4The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18-years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated August 31, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:

(a) he committed acts or omissions 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);

(b) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

6College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. At all material times, Ian Norman MacRae was a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Lakehead District School Board (the “Board”) as the Director of Education.

3. At all material times, Persons 1-21 were employees or trustees of the Board.

4. Between June 2014 and March 2020, the Member made comments that referred to staff and trustees of the Board in a manner that was inappropriate or that he knew or ought to have known was unwelcome, including:

(a) referring to Person 1 as “chicken man” and “too tall”;

(b) referring to Person 2 as “wannabe beauty queen”;

(c) referring to Person 3 as “stupid”;

(d) calling Person 3 a “back-stabbing two faced lemming”;

(e) stating that he would “blast” Person 3;

(f) commenting about Person 4’s physical appearance by stating that they were “allergic to vegetables” and “that would be a lot of sunscreen” when Person 4 was about to vacation in Mexico;

(g) referring to Person 5 as “Garden Gnome”;

(h) referring to Person 6 as “Jellybean”;

(i) referring to Person 7 as “Derwood”;

(j) referring to Person 8 as “a life sentence”;

(k) referring to Person 9 as “the nun”;

(l) referring to Persons 2, 9 and 10 as the “Witches of Eastwick”;

(m) referring to Person 11 as “Hummer Boy” and “Baby Pants”;

(n) referring to Person 12 as “Jughead”;

(o) referring to Person 13 as “German Tank”;

(p) referring to Person 14 as “[XXX] Dummy [XXX],” “Slewfoot [XXX],” and “Clueless [XXX]”;

(q) referring to Person 15 as “Sorceress”;

(r) referring to Person 16 as “the fortune teller”; and

(s) referring to Person 17 as “[XXX] Diesel” and “[XXX] Ratchet”.

5. Between June 2014 and March 2020, the Member fell asleep during work on occasion, including during meetings, in his office, and during a student [XXX] hearing.

6. In June 2016, the Member made comments about Indigenous People that were offensive, including that:

(a) he had made negative comments about Indigenous People in the past; and

(b) he would not give a new school in the Board an Indigenous name.

7. In June 2016, the Member made inappropriate comments to Person 18 in front of other colleagues, including:

(a) calling Person 18 a “liar” in relation to a report made to the board of trustees;

(b) saying “I don’t know who Person 18 thinks she is”; and

(c) saying “there is nothing saying that Person 18 has to keep her job”.

8. In the spring of 2017, after a garden was established on Board property which could attract rabbits, the Member said, in relation to Person 19 who had a [XXX] to rabbits, “That will take care of one of my problems.”

9. In the spring of 2017, the Member asked communication staff to remove the achievements of Person 19 from the Board website and stated that he wished for bad things to happen to her.

10. In the spring of 2018, blinds were being installed in the Member’s office and he was upset that the person installing the blinds stepped on his desk. In response, he removed the blinds from the window in his office and threw them into the hallway. When a staff member removed the blinds from the hallway, the Member threw the blinds into the hallway again.

11. In [XXX] 2019, the Member told Person 20, who was a candidate for a [XXX] position with the Board, “The job is yours and you will get it based on looks alone.”

12. In the spring of 2019, the Member made inappropriate comments in relation to Board staff who were to complete his performance appraisal, including:

(a) “I have to do this because Person 3 doesn’t like me”;

(b) “I am counting on you”; and

(c) insisting staff complete the performance appraisal in front of him while he watched.

13. In June 2019, the Member made inappropriate comments towards Board staff who were potential witnesses in a harassment investigation into his conduct, including:

(a) saying to Person 21, “My lawyer is going to be requesting the witness list and you sure as hell wouldn’t want to be on it”; and

(b) saying to Person 21, “I’m going to be looking for that witness list. I’m going to find out who’s on it”.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

14. By this document, the Member pleads no contest, for the purposes of this proceeding only, to the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1 to 13 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

15. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 4-13 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

(a) he committed an act or 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);

(b) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

16. By this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that, by pleading no contest 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 can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct;

(e) 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;

(f) he understands that any agreement with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel or having had the opportunity to obtain legal advice.

17. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, 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.

18. In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances and the plea of no contest, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

7Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on November 1, 2023, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

8The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 15 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that paragraphs 4 to 13 of the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behaviour, making disrespectful and threatening comments to and about staff and trustees of the Board, offensive comments about Indigenous people, falling asleep during work including during a student [XXX] hearing and repeatedly throwing Board property out of his office.

9The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member spoke to and about staff and trustees of the Board in a disrespectful and demeaning manner over the course of years. The Member’s comments included insults to trustees’ appearance, character, and intelligence, as well as threats to trustees’ jobs and safety. The Panel finds the Member’s comments and behaviour appalling. Members of the teaching profession hold a privileged position in society as role models for students and the community. They are expected to exemplify moral virtues and demonstrate respect and professionalism. The Member failed to do so. His insults and demeaning comments to and about staff and trustees were rude, offensive and immoral. The Member’s threatening comments to and about staff members, including those involved in his performance appraisal and harassment investigation were morally wrong and unprofessional. Through his behaviour, the Member insulted the integrity of official Board processes and took advantage of his authority to place undue pressure and fear on staff members. Additionally, the Member acted unprofessionally by falling asleep during work including during a student’s [XXX] hearing and by throwing blinds out of his office. The Panel finds that the Member was brazenly rude and unprofessional to have fallen asleep during a student’s [XXX] hearing. By doing so, the Member disregarded the serious impact of the hearing on a student, their peers, parents, the school and community. The Member’s pattern of inappropriate behaviour was not the product of a momentary lapse in judgment, but was evident of the Member’s long-standing moral and professional failing spanning years.

10The Panel finds it particularly disgraceful that the Member made these comments and behaved in this manner while serving as the Director of Education. As Director of Education, the Member represented the teaching profession and had wide-reaching influence on students, the Board, school community and the public in general. For a member in such a high position of authority, influence and visibility, it was incumbent on the Member to act as a positive role model and exhibit professionalism and respect. It is evident that the Member recognized his influence and power as the Director of Education, but he exploited it to denigrate others. His flagrant disregard for people’s dignity and his professional obligations was shameful and not reflective of a leader, let alone a member of the teaching profession.

11The Panel is also particularly alarmed by the Member’s offensive comments about Indigenous people. He said that he had made negative comments about Indigenous people in the past and that he would not give a new school in the Board an Indigenous name. These comments foster disrespect towards Indigenous people, especially when it’s made by a member of a teaching profession serving in the position of Director of Education. The Member did a disservice to the teaching profession, to his Board, and to his community by making such offensive and dismissive comments about Indigenous people, especially since they constitute a large population of the community which he serves. As a Director of Education, the Member wields credibility and influence in the community and his negative, offensive comments could have wide, negative ramifications. His decision to make such comments was not only disrespectful and unprofessional, but irresponsible.

12The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Students, parents, and the public expect that members of the teaching profession will exercise sound judgment in representing the school community. The Member failed in this regard on multiple occasions. As such, the Member has eroded the trust that the public places in members of the teaching profession and seriously undermined the reputation of the teaching profession.

F. PENALTY Decision

13The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on November 1, 2023, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to receive a reprimand, in writing, and that the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter;

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) prior to accepting any position in Ontario that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding conflict resolution, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide the course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 3(a)(i) above, the course practitioner shall provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee's concerns regarding the Member's professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member and the assignments to be completed by the Member; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in paragraph 3(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from the course practitioner stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

14The 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 unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Tersigni, 2022 ONOCT 102; Ontario College of Teachers v. Reid, 2021 ONOCT 126; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Spence, 2022 ONOCT 37.

15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the Member’s senior position as the Director of Education, a position of leadership and influence; the significant number of instances in which he made inappropriate comments to and about people; the fact that he ought to have known his comments and behaviour were unwelcome; his repeated conduct over a long period of time; and the fact that the Member made disrespectful comments about Indigenous people while serving a community that has a large Indigenous population. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest the misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s long career with no discipline history was a mitigating factor, but the Panel disagrees. While it may reflect an absence of an aggravating factor, it is not mitigating in this case. The Member acted inappropriately for many years, although he was never previously brought before the Discipline Committee during those years. The Member’s lack of previous discipline before the Discipline Committee does not reflect a career free of misconduct. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

16The Panel finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate, offensive and disrespectful conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models for students. The Member failed to do so when he disrespected staff and trustees of the Board, fell asleep during work, and made offensive comments about Indigenous people. The Member’s misconduct demonstrated a significant lack of concern for his professional and moral obligations. 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. The Panel finds it appropriate to order a written reprimand, as agreed to by the parties.

17Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a four-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on November 16, 2023, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding conflict resolution will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a member of the teaching profession and will help him make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.```