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
Joseph François-Mario Vallières, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JOSEPH FRANÇOIS-MARIO VALLIÈRES (REGISTRATION #458842)
PANEL: Myrna Tulandi, Chair
Pascale Evans, OCT
Marlène Marwah
HEARD: February 5, 2024
Lauren Weaver, for the Ontario College of Teachers
No one appearing for Joseph François-Mario Vallières.
Renée Kopp, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsections 32.1(1) and 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of Student 1 or of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject
of evidence in a hearing.
By order of Justice R. Kwolek of the Ontario Court of Justice, there is also a publication ban on any information that could identify the victim or a witness in this matter, pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code.
1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on February 5, 2024, in accordance with Rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Joseph François-Mario Vallières (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing, but was represented by counsel throughout the disciplinary process leading up to it. 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 2, who was under 18 at the time of the hearing.
4College 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 might identify Student 1, who was over 18 at the time of the hearing and was the subject of evidence. According to College Counsel, the Panel should issue the publication ban under 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. While this student was under the age of 18 at the time of the events in question, he was not under 18 at the time of the hearing. Therefore, he does not benefit from the protection of the publication ban under subsection 32.1(3), but his identity must nonetheless be protected.
5The Panel granted the request to protect the identity of Student 1 and issued a publication ban under subsections 32(7) and 32.1(1) of the Act. Where a Panel finds that there is the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person that justifies a departure from the general principle that hearings should be open to the public, it can render an order under subsection 32(7) excluding the public from the hearing. The Panel is satisfied that such an order is warranted based on College Counsel’s submissions. Subsection 32.1(1) allows the Panel to order a publication ban in situations where the Panel has deemed it appropriate to make an order excluding the public under subsection 32(7).
6In addition, the Panel received a certified copy of the court information regarding the Member’s criminal proceedings before Justice R. Kwolek, dated January 20, 2022 (Exhibit 2). In these proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, an order restricting publication was made pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Panel is required to uphold this publication ban. Accordingly, any information that could identify the victim or a witness involved in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
7The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated February 2, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Joseph François-Mario Vallières is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in 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 physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
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 Act or the regulations or the by-laws, specifically section 32 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
e) 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);
f) 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);
g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
8College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Joseph François-Mario Vallières is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers with Inactive/Non-Practising status. He was a member of the College at all material times. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire catholique du Nouvel-Ontario (the “Board”) as a teacher at École [XXX] (the “School”), in [XXX], Ontario.
During the 2019-2020 academic year, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old male student at the School. During the 2020-2021 academic year, Student 2 was a [XXX]-year-old female student at the School.
Incidents in 2019
On September 24, 2019, the Member was teaching one of Student 1’s classes. When Student 1 refused to leave the classroom, the Member took Student 1 by the arm to make him leave. The incident was reported to the principal, who gave the Member a verbal warning.
On October 22, 2019, the Member was teaching an [XXX] class. At the beginning of the lesson, the students were talking amongst themselves. The Member said, “If there are any punks in this class, you can just leave now.” When Student 1 said, “oh, oh,” the Member said, “I dragged you out last time, I can do it again.” A female student in the class said to the Member, “That’s a threat,” and the Member responded by saying, “Yeah, that’s a threat.”
The incidents that took place on September 24 and October 22, 2019, had a detrimental effect on the students. Following these incidents, the Member received a disciplinary letter. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the letter sent by the principal to the Member, dated November 12, 2019.
Incident on February 12, 2021
On February 12, 2021, the Member was teaching one of Student 2’s classes. The Member was a friend of Student 2’s family.
During class, Student 2 was doing [XXX] problems on the blackboard. When she made a mistake, the Member approached Student 2 and pushed her back towards the blackboard. As he did so, the Member touched Student 2’s buttocks. The Member explained to Student 2 the error she had made solving the [XXX] problem. Student 2 returned to her desk.
She then left the classroom to look for something in her bag. The Member followed Student 2 into the hallway and touched her buttocks again as he led her back into the classroom. Following the Member’s actions, Student 2 was afraid of the Member and the incident negatively impacted her psychological well-being. The incident was reported to the principal and the police.
On January 20, 2022, before the Ontario Court of Justice, the Member was found guilty of assault in relation to the incident on February 12, 2021, where he touched Student 2. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of an excerpt from the transcript of the proceedings before Justice R. Kwolek, dated January 20, 2022.
On January 21, 2022, the Member resigned from his position with the Board.
The Member has undertaken to resign his membership with the College. Additionally, he has agreed never to apply for reinstatement of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the Undertaking and Acknowledgment, signed by the Member on November 21, 2023.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts described above constitute 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(7), 1(7.1), 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 against him;
b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
c) he pleads 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 otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
e) he understands that by entering a plea of no contest to these allegations, he is waiving his right to present evidence with respect to the conclusions to be drawn by the Discipline Committee;
f) he is waiving the right to present evidence relating to the order the Discipline Committee must make in accordance with the facts presented in this Statement of Uncontested Facts and the resulting conclusions drawn;
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 official publication of the College;
h) he understands that any agreement between him and the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
i) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
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, c. E.23 for the purposes of such proceedings 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 Uncontested Facts and plea of no contest, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find that the Member’s actions constituted professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
9Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 5, 2024, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
10The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 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 the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member made unacceptable comments to students in the classroom and touched Student 1 and Student 2 in an inappropriate manner. Among other things, the Member created a stressful climate in the classroom by behaving in an intimidating manner and making threatening comments to the students, which had a detrimental effect on them.
11The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member abused a student verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by making threatening comments to students in class. Specifically, when the Member was teaching an [XXX] class in 2019, he addressed students who were speaking at the beginning of the lesson and said, “If there are any punks in this class, you can just leave now.” The Member told Student 1, “I dragged you out last time, I can do it again.” The Member also responded to a student who said, “That’s a threat,” by saying, “Yeah, that’s a threat.” Following these incidents, the Member received a disciplinary letter from the School principal. The content and tone of the Member’s comments were derogatory and condescending. The Member used inappropriate and abusive language and threatened Student 1 with violence. The Panel is of the opinion that the Member’s conduct constitutes verbal abuse.
12The Member abused a student physically, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by touching two students in an inappropriate manner. In 2019, when Student 1 refused to leave the classroom, the Member took Student 1 by the arm to make him leave. In addition, in 2021, the Member touched Student 2’s buttocks twice in one day, first to push her towards the blackboard and then to lead her back into the classroom. The Panel notes that there is no allegation in this case claiming that the touching was sexual in nature or for sexual pleasure. There was no reason for the Member to have any contact whatsoever with the students; the fact that he engaged in physical contact with Student 1 and Student 2 is therefore particularly egregious and inappropriate. His conduct violated the professional boundaries that should exist between teachers and students. Teachers are expected to provide a safe environment for students and to inspire confidence through their professional behaviour. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct towards Student 1 and Student 2 constitutes physical abuse.
13The Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2). The Member took advantage of his position of trust and authority in relation to his students without any regard for their well-being. He made comments such as, “If there are any punks in this class, you can just leave now,” “I dragged you out last time, I can do it again,” and, “Yeah, that’s a threat,” and in doing so, he psychologically and emotionally abused the students in his class, including Student 1. The Member touching Student 2’s buttocks had a detrimental effect on her psychological well-being, as she became afraid of the Member as a result of the incident. As a teacher, the Member was in a unique position of trust and authority in relation to his students, and he abused them by treating them in this manner and by making them feel uncomfortable. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct constitutes psychological and emotional abuse.
14The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14). The Panel found that the Member breached the ethical standards to which all members of the teaching profession must adhere, namely Care, Respect, Trust and Integrity. The Care standard provides that members express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. Further, members must honour students’ emotional well-being and their dignity (Respect standard). The Trust standard calls for fairness, openness and honesty in professional relations with students. Finally, the Integrity standard requires members to be reliable and exhibit moral behaviour. In this case, the Member’s misconduct violated all four ethical standards.
15Specifically, the Member failed to uphold the ethical standards when he made threatening and intimidating comments to students in the classroom, when he took Student 1 by the arm and when he touched Student 2’s buttocks. The Member failed to show any compassion or integrity in his dealings with these students. His behaviour towards the students, including making inappropriate comments, was insensitive. By engaging in that sort of conduct, he failed to act with integrity, to be respectful, to behave in a dignified manner and to take into account the students’ emotional well-being. The Member showed no compassion nor empathy for his students, and his actions made them uncomfortable. He did not consider the harmful impact his actions might have on the students and showed no concern for their needs or well-being. The Panel finds that the Member breached the ethical standards of Care, Trust, Respect and Integrity.
16The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Subsection 264(1) of the Education Act sets out the duties of a teacher, namely the duty to exemplify moral virtues and serve as a positive role model, both inside and outside of the classroom [paragraph 264(1)c)]. In this case, the Member intimidated students, made them feel uncomfortable in his presence, and crossed clear professional boundaries with students. In doing so, he took advantage of his position of trust and authority and failed in his duties as a teacher.
17The 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). Members of the teaching profession hold a privileged position of trust and authority in relation to students and the community. As such, they have a moral and professional duty to respect students’ dignity and protect their well-being. In his role as a teacher, the Member should have maintained appropriate professional boundaries with Student 1 and Student 2; his conduct is indicative of a significant moral failing. He should have known that taking Student 1 by the arm and touching Student 2’s buttocks was unacceptable and constituted a breach of the standards of the teaching profession. Through his conduct and lack of consideration for the emotional well-being of Student 1 and Student 2, the Member failed to uphold his professional duties and demonstrated shockingly poor judgment. Behaviour such as the Member’s is indicative of serious moral and professional failings and would be regarded by other members of the teaching profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
18Finally, the Uncontested Facts show that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Students, parents, guardians, and the public expect members of the teaching profession to exercise good judgment when caring for their children, and to take appropriate measures to protect and respect them. The Member failed to protect and respect the bodily integrity of two students. His conduct undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and breached the trust that members of the public have in teachers.
F. RESIGNATION AND UNDERTAKING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
19On November 21, 2023, the Member entered into an Undertaking and Acknowledgment (the “Undertaking”) (Exhibit 2) with the College, in which he agreed to abide by the following terms, conditions and limitations:
I hereby resign as a member of the College with immediate effect.
I agree to never apply for reinstatement of my Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
I agree to never again to hold a position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the College.
I understand that a failure to comply with the terms set out in the Undertaking may constitute professional misconduct and that, in those circumstances, the College will be at liberty to commence proceedings against me.
I acknowledge and accept that my status on the College’s Public Register will be “Cancelled – Resigned” and that the following notation will appear on my profile: “On ● 2023, the Member resigned as a member of the Ontario College of Teachers while disciplinary proceedings were underway. The Member has undertaken never to apply for reinstatement of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration and never again to hold a position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration from the Ontario College of Teachers.”
I understand that the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee are available on the College’s website.
I acknowledge my understanding about the scope, purpose and effect of my execution of this Undertaking and Acknowledgment and am executing the same voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
G. PENALTY DECISION
20The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 5, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to receive a reprimand in writing, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of seven months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter.
H. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
21The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures 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 Silver, 2022 ONOCT 90, Ontario College of Teachers v Mammarella, 2022 ONOCT 111 and Ontario College of Teachers v Milner, 2022 ONOCT 85.
22The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in this case are that the Member was in a position of authority and that he continued to engage in a pattern of behaviour after receiving a disciplinary letter from the School principal. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest the allegations made against him and accepted the penalty imposed, thus saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and sparing the students from needing to testify. In addition, the Panel took into account the fact that the Member entered into an Undertaking and Acknowledgment, and took the initiative to resign from the profession, which indicates that he realized the severity of his conduct and takes the resulting consequences seriously. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
23The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, despite warnings from the School principal, warrants a reprimand. Teachers must always act as role models whom students can trust. However, the Member failed to do so when he touched Student 1 and Student 2 in an inappropriate manner and engaged in intimidating and threatening conduct in the classroom. 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.
24Given the severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a seven-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The seven-month suspension (which the Panel has the authority to order even when a member has resigned) sends a message to the profession as a whole that engaging in such conduct will result in a long and severe suspension. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making it clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable and will lead to a serious penalty. Although the Member resigned as a member of the College, recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s certificate will be suspended effective February 20, 2024, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Decision and Order.
25While the cases presented by College Counsel are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that the penalty ordered is justified and is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient.
26The Panel carefully reviewed the Member’s Undertaking and Acknowledgment and notes that the Member resigned while the disciplinary proceedings were underway and agreed never to apply for reinstatement of his certificate. In light of the terms of the Undertaking, the Panel is satisfied that the Member finally gained some insight into his conduct and personal situation. In addition, the Panel notes that it did not order coursework in this case as the Member will never return to the classroom. The Panel considers that the Member’s decision to resign and to never apply for reinstatement of his certificate will help ensure the protection of the public interest, as he will no longer be a member of the teaching profession.
27The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: February 15, 2024
Myrna Tulandi Chair, Discipline Panel
Pascale Evans, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah 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.```