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
Richard Julien Ménard, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
RICHARD JULIEN MÉNARD (REGISTRATION #491706)
PANEL: Marlène Marwah, Chair Sarah Choudhury Pascale Evans, OCT
HEARD: June 13, 2024
Christine Lonsdale and Audrey-Anne Delage, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Lise Leduc, for Richard Julien Ménard
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 identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, Students 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, or 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 June 13, 2024, pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).
2Richard Julien Ménard (the “Member”) was in attendance for 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. This order applies to Student 3 and Student 8, who were both under 18 at the time of the hearing.
4In addition, at the request of College Counsel and with the consent of the Member’s Counsel, the Panel issued a publication ban pursuant to subsections 32(7) and 32.1(1) of the Act in order to protect the identities of Students 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Subsection 32(7) gives the Panel the power to render 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. Under subsection 32.1(1), the Panel may issue a publication ban in situations where it renders an order excluding the public under subsection 32(7).
5According to the Panel, disclosing any information that might reveal the identity of Students 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 could potentially harm their right to privacy. Although these students were over 18 years old 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. In the Panel’s view, it would not be fair or equitable to disclose the identity of Students 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 when the other students, who are also the subject of evidence, are sufficiently protected by a publication ban. The Panel noted that disclosing the identity of Students 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 could also potentially reveal the identity of Students 3 and 8. In order to protect all students who are the subject of evidence at this hearing, the Panel deemed it important to render a discretionary order under subsections 32(7) and 32.1(1). Lastly, the Panel noted that it was not necessary to disclose the identities of these students to ensure the transparency of the Member’s disciplinary process. The Panel therefore rendered an order to protect the identity, or any information likely to disclose the identity of, Students 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
6The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 15, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Richard Julien Ménard is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
a) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
c) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
d) 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);
e) 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);
f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Richard Julien Ménard is a member of the College. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l’Est ontarien (the “Board”) as a teacher in the [XXX] (the “School”), in Cornwall, Ontario.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] student in a class taught by the Member. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Student 2 was a Grade [XXX] student in a class taught by the Member. Student 2 also attended the School during the 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Student 3 was a Grade [XXX] student in a class taught by the Member. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Student 4 was a Grade [XXX] student at the School. During the 2019-2020 academic year, Student 5 was a Grade [XXX] student in a class taught by the Member. During the 2019-2020 academic year, Student 6 was a Grade [XXX] student in a class taught by the Member. During the 2020-2021 academic year, Student 7 was a Grade [XXX] student at the School. During the 2020-2021 academic year, Student 8 was a Grade [XXX] student in a class taught by the Member.
Incidents in April 2017
In April 2017, Student 1 posted a photo of herself in her underwear on Instagram. Someone shared the photo in the school community. Student 1 was receiving bullying remarks from other students at the School. On April [XXX], 2017, Student 1’s homeroom teacher notified the Member of the situation.
Student 1 came to class looking sad and depressed. The Member did not see the photo in question and Student 1 did not raise the issue with the Member in any way.
On April [XXX], 2017, when Student 1 was in his class, the Member told Student 1, in front of other students, that it wasn’t the best decision of her life, but that tomorrow would be a better day. Student 1 did not appreciate the Member’s comment.
On April , 2017, when the Member’s homeroom class was starting, Student 1 walked past his desk. She was crying and was followed by several students. The Member asked Student 1 if she wanted to talk about it. Student 1 refused.
Subsequently, some students in the Member’s class began chatting inappropriately about Student 1 and the photo that was circulating. The Member intervened. He told the students that the situation was none of their business and that any student who shared the photo circulating on social media could be suspended. When Student 1 found out that the Member had discussed her situation, even though he hadn’t identified her by name, she was embarrassed.
After meeting with the principal, Student 1’s schedule was changed to remove her from the Member’s class because she no longer wanted to be in his class. The Member received a written warning regarding the conduct described above. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member, dated June 19, 2017.
2018-2019 Academic Year
- During the 2018-2019 academic year, the Member failed to maintain proper boundaries in that:
a) he hugged Student 2;
b) during a school [XXX] activity at [XXX]:
(i) he touched Student 2’s hair;
(ii) he carried Students 2 and 3 on his shoulders;
(iii) he let some female Grade [XXX] students [XXX] between his legs and [XXX]between the legs of some female students, during a game of [XXX];
(iv) after Student 2 had bent down to pick something up off the ground, he said to a male student, “I know she has a great butt, but don’t stare.”
- On December 19, 2018, students from the School were attending a mass in which the school choir was taking part. During the mass, Student 4 made numerous inappropriate and crude remarks regarding the choir and the priest. In an attempt to take charge of the situation, the Member told Student 4, “Shut up” and other such remarks. The comment was inappropriate and Student 4 rightfully considered the remarks to be threatening, which had an adverse effect on him. On December 20, 2018, the School principal gave the Member a verbal warning regarding the incident on December 19, 2018.
2019-2020 Academic Year
On October [XXX], 2019, at the end of one of his Grade [XXX] classes, the Member took a booster seat from his vehicle and placed it on one of his students’ chairs (Student 5). He told his class it was a joke because Student 5 was short.
When Student 5 came into class on October [XXX], 2019, he saw the booster seat on his chair. He brought the chair to the Member. Other students were laughing. The Member did not intervene. The incident had an adverse effect on Student 5.
In November 2019, the Member told Student 6 after she had hit another student’s finger that if he saw her hurting another student, he would call the police. The Member had a meeting with Student 6’s parent in which the tone and content of the Member’s comments about Student 6 were awkward.
On or about December 9, 2019, the Member said to Student 5, “You, with your groundhog teeth.” This remark about Student 5 was inappropriate.
The Member received a disciplinary letter and was required to take a course on professional judgment offered by the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member, dated January 7, 2020.
During the 2019-2020 academic year, the Member failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Student 2 in that:
a) he came up behind Student 2, who was then in Grade [XXX] and no longer the Member’s student, and gave her a hug;
b) he touched a strand of Student 2’s hair, telling her that he missed her in his class;
c) he hugged Student 2.
- In March 2020, in preparation for the COVID pandemic, the School introduced online learning for students. On or about May 13, 2020, the Member sent the following email to Student 2: “That’s it!!!! No Oh my god!!!1 It’s you!!!! So how’s it going, kiddo? You can bug me virtually Tuesday and Wednesday mornings 0815 0830 if you feel like getting up early?!?” On or about May 19, 2020, the Member emailed a Google Meet link to Student 2 inviting her to a virtual one-on-one meeting to catch up. The Member and Student 2 met on Google Meet. Both the tone of the communication and the individual meeting with Student 2 were inappropriate.
2020-2021 Academic Year
On or about December [XXX], 2020, the Member was supervising a Grade [XXX] class during morning indoor recess. Student 7, who is [XXX], dropped a friend’s snack on the floor. The Member intervened and took Student 7 out into the hallway, where he loudly and overbearingly reprimanded him. The reprimand was so loud that the other students in the class overheard it. The Member said to Student 7 in front of the other students, “Do you think you’re the boss?”
Once he was back in the classroom, Student 7 put his head down on his desk, which was a sign of “shutdown” for him. The Member instructed the occasional teacher not to let Student 7 leave the classroom. Student 7 ignored the instruction and went to the transition resource room, as set out in his IEP. An educator greeted Student 7 and gave him time to calm down. When Student 7 was returning to class for lunch, the Member came to the educator’s office. He told Student 7 to stay put because he wanted to talk to him again. He reprimanded Student 7 again, in front of the educator, in an authoritative tone. Student 7 replied that he felt humiliated in front of his peers. He said that some students were laughing at him when he returned to class. The Member asked for the names of the students who were laughing at him. Student 7 was staring down at the floor. He was trembling and refused to answer. The educator had to remind the Member of Student 7’s IEP. The incident adversely affected Student 7.
Following the incident of December [XXX], 2020, the Member received a verbal warning.
During the 2020-2021 academic year, the Member:
a) gave some students shoulder massages, which was inappropriate;
b) touched Student 8’s hair, telling her he liked her hair, which was inappropriate.
2021-2022 Academic Year
On or about March 23, 2022, the Member came into one of the School’s gymnasium change rooms, where female Grade [XXX] students were changing, without knocking, to put away field hockey nets. He left without realizing the students were there.
Following the incident of March 23, 2022, the Board became aware of the incidents involving Student 2, Student 3, Student 8 and other students in 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. The Member received a disciplinary letter and a three-day suspension without pay in connection with these other incidents. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Board’s letter to the Member, dated May 10, 2022.
The Member’s conduct constitutes a violation of the College’s Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (the “Standards”). Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Standards.
The Member is still employed by the Board as a teacher at the School.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the facts referred to herein (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the findings by the College that these facts constitute breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document, the Member states that:
a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations of professional misconduct against him;
b) he understands that by signing this document, he consents to the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee, and agrees that the Committee can accept the facts as accurate for the purposes of this proceeding;
c) he is pleading no contest to the findings by the College that the Uncontested Facts and allegations constitute professional misconduct as described in this document, and agrees that the Discipline Committee may make this finding without a hearing;
d) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
e) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to present evidence relating to the Committee’s findings;
f) he does not intend to present evidence as to the order to be made by the Committee based on its findings and conclusions in accordance with this Statement of Uncontested Facts;
g) 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 College’s official publication;
h) he understands that any agreement between the College and himself with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
i) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this agreement voluntarily, unequivocally and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Act, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the aforementioned Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
8Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties and in view of the plea inquiry conducted directly with the Member during the hearing, the Panel rendered an oral decision on June 13, 2024, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
9The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 26 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. As described in the following paragraphs, the Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member created a classroom environment that was not conducive to his students’ learning. His professional misconduct included intimidation and making inappropriate and disparaging remarks to students on several occasions. The Member also failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with students.
10The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). The Member made inappropriate and disparaging remarks to students on several occasions, including saying to Student 5, in front of the entire class, “You, with your groundhog teeth,” and telling Student 4, “Shut up.” In addition, the Member humiliatingly reprimanded Student 7 twice: first in the hallway, where he spoke so loudly and overbearingly that all the other students in the class could hear it, and then in front of an educator, where he used an authoritative tone. The Member also said to Student 7 in front of the other students, “Do you think you’re the boss?” For a teacher to address students in such an insensitive and unpleasant manner is inappropriate and shows a lack of professionalism, but it is also humiliating for the student in question, and therefore constitutes verbal abuse. Given the power imbalance between teachers and students, and the impact of teachers’ words on students, members of the profession have a duty to address all students respectfully, even when reprimanding them, which the Member failed to do in this case.
11The Panel finds that the Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Member repeatedly intimidated and belittled his students, creating a stressful classroom environment. The Uncontested Facts show that the Member told Student 1, in front of other students, that posting a photo of herself in her underwear on Instagram was not the best decision of her life. He also discussed Student 1’s situation with other students, which embarrassed her and prompted her to change her school schedule to avoid having him as a teacher. In addition, the Member behaved disrespectfully towards Student 5 and Student 7. In particular, he placed a booster seat on Student 5’s chair, because Student 5 was short, and told the class it was a joke. This incident had an adverse effect on Student 5. In addition, the interactions with Student 7 described above left the student trembling and feeling humiliated in front of his peers. The Member’s conduct in no way promoted the emotional and psychological well-being of these students. Instead, he created a stressful, demeaning and humiliating environment which is hardly conducive to his students’ learning.
12The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with section 26 of the by-laws, which sets out the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). Members are bound by the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, which are Care, Respect, Trust and Integrity. In this case, the Member’s misconduct violated the standards of Care and Respect. The Care standard requires members to express their commitment to student well-being and learning through positive influence, compassion and empathy in practice. The Respect standard requires members of the profession to honour the emotional wellness and human dignity of the students in their care.
13The Member’s disparaging and intimidating comments to students, such as “Do you think you’re the boss?”, “Shut up,” and “You, with your groundhog teeth,” were disrespectful to his students. The Member also showed a lack of respect for his students by loudly reprimanding Student 7 in front of an educator or so that the whole class could hear, and by putting a booster seat on Student 5’s chair as a joke.
14Furthermore, the Member demonstrated a lack of respect for the human dignity and emotional wellness of the students when he failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with them. The evidence shows that the Member gave hugs and massages to students. He touched students’ hair, carried some students on his shoulders and led a game [XXX] in which female students had to [XXX] between his legs and vice versa. The Member’s actions made his students uncomfortable and demonstrated a lack of care or concern on his behalf for the students’ emotional wellness. The Member disregarded the negative impact of his actions on his students.
15The Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). This provision of the Act requires teachers to act as positive role models for students, which the Member repeatedly failed to do. The Member did not act as a positive role model or set an example when he intimidated students, made disparaging remarks to them and failed to maintain professional boundaries with them. On the contrary, through his intimidating and inappropriate conduct, the Member took advantage of his singular position of trust and authority and failed in his duties as a teacher.
16The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). The fact that he made intimidating and humiliating remarks to students in front of the class and the educator, and that he failed in various ways to maintain appropriate boundaries with students, casts serious doubt on the Member’s moral and professional fitness. Even when teachers experience behavioural challenges with students, their classroom management and discipline must be respectful. The Member ought to have known that his conduct would be humiliating for the students. The Panel also notes that the Member’s disparaging remarks to students demonstrate a serious lack of professional judgment.
17Lastly, the Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Parents and the public expect members of the teaching profession to ensure students’ physical and emotional well-being and safety at all times. Parents also expect teachers to use professional classroom management methods that are respectful of their children. The Member’s intimidating and overbearing conduct, including his disparaging remarks, created a stressful classroom environment for the students, undermining the public’s trust in teachers and tarnishing the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY DECISION
18The parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3) to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on June 13, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered in person at the offices of the College, at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, or electronically, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of three months, as of the 15th calendar day following the decision and order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the decision and order are rendered between May 1 and August 1, the suspension will begin on September 1.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Member shall enroll in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member shall provide to 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 (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 course goals;
b) Within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to the outlined goals of the course.
19The 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. Duncan, 2022 ONOCT 26, Ontario College of Teachers v. Duncan, 2022 ONOCT 64, Ontario College of Teachers v. Ndoume Angoune, 2022 ONOCT 119, Ontario College of Teachers v. Ndoume Angoune, 2022 ONOCT 121 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Landry, 2023 ONOCT 68.
20The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. In this case, the aggravating factors are that the Member’s conduct affected several students and was repeated over several academic years, even though he had received a warning and disciplinary letters from the Board. As to mitigating factors, the Member has never previously been the subject of a disciplinary hearing and he did not contest his professional misconduct, saving the time and resources of a contested hearing and sparing the students from having to testify. The Panel also considered that the Member was often well intentioned despite his clumsy and unprofessional conduct. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable, protects the public interest and is not likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute or undermine the College’s disciplinary process.
(1) Reprimand
21The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand. Teachers are expected to be respectful to students and use professional classroom management methods. The Panel finds the Member’s disparaging and intimidating comments in the classroom and his inappropriate discipline/management of a student to be concerning. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register is important because it will serve as a general deterrent to the other members of the profession.
(2) Suspension
22Given the seriousness of the Member’s conduct, the Panel finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented by the College are factually distinct in some ways from this matter, the underlying nature of the professional misconduct is similar and confirms that a suspension of the certificate is warranted and that the proposed duration of the suspension falls within the range of previous decisions for similar conduct. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent on the Member and a general deterrent on the members of the profession, sending a clear message that this type of professional misconduct is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the suspension of the Member’s certificate will commence on September 1, 2024.
(3) Course
23The Panel finds that the course on professional boundaries will assist with the Member’s rehabilitation. It should remind him of his obligations as a teacher and help him to make better decisions in his interactions with students. The Panel finds that the public interest will be served by the Member’s successful completion of this course before he returns to a teaching position, so that the students in his care benefit from the knowledge and skills he acquires.
24The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: June 28, 2024
Marlène Marwah Chair, Discipline Panel
Sarah Choudhury Member, Discipline Panel
Pascale Evans, OCT 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.