Ontario College of Teachers v. Mekonnen, 2024 ONOCT 26

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Mekonnen 2024 ONOCT 26

Date: 2024-07-25

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

Mulatu Tariku Mekonnen, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

MULATU TARIKU MEKONNEN (REGISTRATION #440705)

PANEL: Adam Dharsee, OCT, Chair Pascale Evans, OCT Victoria Romero

HEARD: July 16, 2024

Zirka Jakibchuk, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Austen Metcalfe, for Mulatu Tariku Mekonnen

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 July 16, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Mulatu Tariku Mekonnen (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but did have 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.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated April 23, 2024 (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 failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) he abused a student or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsections 264(1)(b) and (c) 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).

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Mulatu Tariku Mekonnen is 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 Toronto District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] Collegiate (the “School”) in Scarborough, Ontario.

3. In the 2021-2022 academic year, Student 1 and Student 2 were male students in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class and Student 3 was a female student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class.

4. Between February and June 2022, the Member made numerous inappropriate and disparaging comments to students in his Grade [XXX] class, including:

(a) referring to Student 1 and Student 2 as “lazy boys”, or words to that effect;

(b) on one or more occasions, calling students “useless”;

(c) when distributing marked assessments, saying in front of the class to Student 1, “you did badly on that,” or words to that effect; and

(d) saying to Student 1 words to the effect of, “[you] wouldn’t have done any better,” when Student 1 asked why only one out of three pages of his test was marked.

5. In or around March 2022, the Member did not provide four students in his Grade [XXX] class, including Student 3, with the accommodations set out in their Individual Education Plans by:

(a) not letting the students finish their test in the resource room with the additional time they required; and

(b) insisting that the students finish writing the test in the classroom.

6. The Member then said to Student 3 words to the effect of, “you don’t need to cry about it,” when she was not allowed to finish her Grade [XXX] test in the resource room.

7. On June 30, 2022, the Board issued a discipline letter to the Member and suspended him for 10 days without pay for various conduct issues in the 2021-2022 academic year, including those set out above. The Board found that the Member’s conduct did not foster a positive school climate and reflected insufficient consideration for the emotional and educational wellbeing of students assigned to the Member’s care and instruction. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter.

Prior Conduct History

8. On March 19, 2012, the Board issued the Member a letter of reprimand and suspended him for three days without pay for, during the 2011-2012 academic year:

(a) making inappropriate comments to students on more than one occasion, including calling students “stupid,” “retard” and “horrible learner”;

(b) failing to accommodate and assist a student when requested;

(c) failing to teach students the complete [XXX] curriculum.

9. On June 26, 2013, the College’s Investigation Committee (“IC”) considered a complaint related to the same conduct. The IC admonished the Member in writing in respect of the allegations relating to the conduct in subparas. 8(a) and (b), and issued a reminder to the Member in respect of the allegation relating to the conduct in subpara. 8(c). Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” are copies of the Investigation Committee’s Decision and Admonishment dated June 26, 2013.

10. On December 5, 2012, the Board issued a letter of reprimand to the Member and suspended him for five days without pay for, in September 2012, making inappropriate comments to students on more than one occasion, which included calling a student “stupid,” and telling another student, “Why don’t you just drop the class if you don’t understand me?”

11. On February 27, 2014, the IC considered a complaint related to the conduct in para. 10 and admonished the Member in writing. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” are copies of the Investigation Committee’s Decision and Admonishment dated February 27, 2014.

12. On June 17, 2020, the Board issued the Member a letter of discipline for, on November 13, 2019, making unwelcome and controversial comments to students about birth control, rape, and abortion.

13. On May 7, 2021, the Board issued the Member a letter of discipline and suspended him for three days without pay for, between November 2019 and February 2021, failing to provide students with feedback regarding their assignments or mid-term marks, failing to mark and return student assignments/tests in a timely manner, and using evaluation practices that provided an inaccurate reflection of students’ progress.

14. On May 16, 2023, the IC considered a complaint related to the conduct in paras. 12 and 13 and admonished the Member in person. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “E” are copies of the Investigation Committee’s Decision dated May 16, 2023 and Admonishment of the same date, which was delivered to the Member via videoconference on June 14, 2023.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

15. 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 1-14 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

16. The Member hereby acknowledges that the conduct set out at paragraphs 4-7 of the Uncontested Facts constitutes professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15) and 1(18).

17. By this document, the Member states that:

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

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts (including the appendices) 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 prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;

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

18. 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, chapter E.23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act 1996, chapter 12, 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.

19. 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

6Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on July 16, 2024, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15) and 1(18).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

7The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pled no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member made numerous inappropriate and disparaging comments to students and failed to respect and follow students’ Individual Education Plans (“IEP”).

8The Statement of Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to subsection 1(5) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel finds the Member breached the professional standards of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning”, “Professional Practice” and “Leadership in Learning Communities”, as well as the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect” set out in the by-laws.

9The professional standard of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” requires members to be dedicated in their care and commitment to students. The Member failed to demonstrate this commitment by making inappropriate and disparaging comments about students and their academic performances in front of the class, and by failing to accommodate students’ identified learning needs. In fact, the Member’s behavior undermined students’ learning and created a negative learning environment. The professional standard of “Professional Practice” requires members to apply professional knowledge and experience to promote student learning. The Member failed to properly apply his professional knowledge and experience when he did not use the appropriate assessment and evaluation method to respond to the needs of students with IEPs. The professional standard of “Leadership in Learning Communities” requires members to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supporting learning communities. The Member neglected to do so by making disparaging remarks to his students and by failing to provide appropriate supports and accommodations to his students. The Panel therefore finds the Member breached the above-noted professional standards.

10The ethical standard of “Care” requires members to demonstrate their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, compassion, and empathy in practice. The Member failed to express a commitment to the well-being and learning of his students by failing to respect students’ IEPs and failing to provide them with the accommodations required to support their learning. The ethical standard of “Respect” requires members to honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. The Member failed to model respect for student confidentiality by making disparaging comments about Student 1’s poor academic performance in front of his peers. In particular, the Member said to Student 1, in front of the class, “you did badly on that” and words of the effect of, “[you] wouldn’t have done any better” when Student 1 asked why only one out of three pages of his test was marked. This kind of language demonstrates a disrespect for students and a disregard for students’ emotional wellness and cognitive development. The Panel therefore finds the Member breached the ethical standards of “Care” and “Respect”.

11The Member abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7). The Panel finds the Member abused Student 1 and Student 2 verbally by making denigrating comments to them in front of their peers. Referring to students as “useless” and “lazy boys” is not only disrespectful, but also a form of verbal abuse. The Member also verbally abused Student 3 by mocking her in front of the class by saying “you don’t need to cry about it”, when she was not allowed to finish writing her test in the resource room, in accordance with her IEP. Teachers hold a position of trust and authority with respect to students. With this position, they are expected to foster safe and supportive learning environments for students. Using disrespectful terms to refer to students and making inappropriate and degrading comments to students in front of the class amounts to verbal abuse as it is rude behaviour that singles students out and would reasonably cause them to feel uncomfortable or embarrassed at school. As such, the Panel finds the Member’s conduct constitutes verbal abuse.

12The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). Referring to students as “lazy boys” and “useless” and making numerous inappropriate and disparaging comments to students, in front of the class, amounts to psychological or emotional abuse. Furthermore, the Member’s conduct negatively impacted students’ emotional well-being when he did not respect and follow students’ IEPs. The Panel finds the Member’s conduct did not foster a positive learning environment for students. Teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a way that fosters the emotional and educational well-being of students. The Member repeatedly fell short of meeting this expectation.

13The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(b) requires teachers to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. By making demeaning comments to students and criticizing their academic performance in front of their peers and by failing to accommodate students’ individual learning needs, the Panel finds the Member made comments that clearly failed to encourage students in their pursuit of learning and adversely impacted their social-emotional well-being. Section 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that members of the teaching profession must behave with integrity and serve as positive role models within their school communities. The Member’s conduct was antithetical to these principles. By making numerous inappropriate and insensitive comments to students the Member did not act as a role model for his students or exemplify the qualities teachers are expected to demonstrate. As such, the Member’s conduct was at odds with his duties as a member of the teaching profession.

14The Member 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). By engaging in inappropriate communications with students and failing to adhere to accommodations in students’ IEPs, the Member demonstrated a disregard for his professional duties and for the emotional and educational welfare of his students. Members of the teaching profession are expected to act as role models and to behave in a respectful manner at all times. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct can be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

F. PENALTY Decision

15The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on July 16, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

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

2. The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Registrar”) is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 180 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, either the ‘Learning Environment’ or the ‘Orientation to Teaching in Ontario’ Additional Qualification course, which have been pre-approved by the Registrar and cover classroom management, appropriate communication with students, and accommodating individual student learning needs, among other topics;

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide evidence to the Registrar in writing of his successful completion of said course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

16The 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. Sypus, 2018 ONOCT 9 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gibb, 2020 ONOCT 142.

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the following: the repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct despite prior warnings and disciplinary measures taken by his Board and the College’s Investigation Committee to address his misconduct, and the fact that the Member’s misconduct occurred on several occasions and affected six students. The Panel identifies three mitigating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member’s misconduct, which occurred in the 2021-2022 academic year, was appropriately addressed by his Board. Second, the Member has no prior disciplinary history with the Discipline Committee of the College. Third, the Member entered into an agreement on the facts and penalty with College Counsel, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and saving witnesses from having to testify at a hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

18The Panel finds that the Member’s repeated inappropriate conduct, despite prior warnings and discipline from his Board and the College, warrants a reprimand. Members of the teaching profession are expected to serve as role models for students, which the Member failed to do by repeatedly making disparaging and inappropriate comments to the students. 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.

19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding topics of classroom management, appropriate communication with students, and accommodating individual student learning needs will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

20The 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.