Ontario College of Teachers v. D’Onofrio, 2024 ONOCT 32

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v D’Onofrio 2024 ONOCT 32

Date: 2024-08-30

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 Francesco D’Onofrio, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

FRANCESCO D’ONOFRIO (REGISTRATION # 484491)

PANEL: Anthony Jeethan, OCT, Chair Rachelle Coleman Terrence Singh, OCT

HEARD: July 18, 2024

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Jerry Raso, for Francesco D’Onofrio Erica Richler, 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 18, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Francesco D’Onofrio (the “Member”) attended 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.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated November 30, 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 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 26 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

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

1. Francesco D’Onforio is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “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 Dufferin Peel Catholic School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] Secondary School (the “School”).

September 2017 – February 2018 incidents

3. In February 2018, the Board received an anonymous complaint from students regarding inappropriate comments made by the Member in the classroom. The complaint described comments of a sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and racist nature. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Board initiated an investigation and interviewed students and the Member.

4. Between September 2017 and February 2018, amongst other inappropriate comments, the Member:

(a) said to a student of [XXX] background who was asking for assistance in [XXX] class, “you are [XXX], why would you need help in [XXX]? You should be good at [XXX];”

(b) while giving a test back, told a student of [XXX] background to “open a [XXX] shop;”

(c) after observing a female student working while a male student was not, commented “oh great, a woman working… just like how it is supposed to be right;”

(d) said to some students in his class “hey guys, I heard something funny, women are equal to men;”

(e) told his class that he did not want to attend a staff meeting regarding an 2LGBTQT+ [sic] presentation because he thought it was a waste of time.

5. On February 15, 2018, following a School assembly on sexual identity and the 2LGBTQ+ [sic] community, the Member:

(a) looked at the attendance sheet and asked various students, what gender they “felt like being today? A female or a male?”

(b) told a student he was angry that his taxes were going to pay for surgeries for transgender people.

6. The above-noted comments were made in the classroom and were upsetting to a number of students.

7. Following the Board’s investigation, on March 8, 2018, the Member received a letter of discipline and a one-day suspension without pay. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Board’s March 8, 2018 letter to the Member.

December 10, 2019 Incident

8. On December 10, 2019, the Member told a student that he would get a grade of zero for missing a test. The student replied that his mother had called the School about his absence. The Member told the student “I don’t fucking care if your mother called in”. The student went to speak to the guidance counsellor about the situation. The student was very upset by the interaction and was crying when speaking to the guidance counsellor.

9. Following an investigation by the Board, on January 8, 2020 the Member received a letter of discipline and a three-day suspension without pay. The Member was also required to participate in professional development and training in the area of stress management. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s January 8, 2020 letter to the Member.

10. On February 5, 2020, the Member completed a course on Classroom/Stress Management. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the February 5, 2020 letter from the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association confirming the Member’s completion of the course.

May-June 2021 Incidents

11. On May 10, 2021, the Member sent an email to the School Principal with the subject line “CEC and pride flag” which said “is it true the pride flag is being flown at the CEC?”.

12. On May 11, 2021, the Member sent a mass email to all staff at the School with the subject line “CEC and pride flag” which said “according to my parish priest, the CEC is now flying the pride flag. Can anyone confirm this? I tried calling the switchboard but I couldn’t get through”. Staff Members were offended by the Member’s email.

13. On June 29, 2021, the Member sent a mass email to staff at the School which linked an article with the title “Rescued from the memory hole: Some First Nations people loved their residential schools.” This upset a number of teachers who wrote back to the Member about the inappropriateness of his email.

14. Following an investigation by the Board of the May-June 2021 incidents, on December 15, 2021 the Member received a letter of discipline and a five-day suspension without pay. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Board’s December 15, 2021 letter to the Member.

15. Effective July 31, 2023, the Member resigned from his employment with the Board. The Member does not intend to return to a teaching position.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

16. 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”).

17. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is 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(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

18. 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 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 between counsel for the College and himself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

19. The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline 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.

20. In light of the Uncontested Facts and the circumstances, 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 18, 2024, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, 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

7The 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 the Uncontested Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Uncontested Facts demonstrate that the Member made numerous harmful, discriminatory, and offensive comments to students and shared similarly harmful and inappropriate literature with colleagues at the School.

8The Panel finds that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Statement of Uncontested Facts demonstrates that the Member made numerous racist, sexist and transphobic comments, which were offensive and upsetting to students. The Member made a number of racist comments to students – he told a student of [XXX] background, “you are [XXX], why would you need help in [XXX]? You should be good at [XXX]” and told a student of [XXX] background to “open a [XXX] shop”. These comments reflect inappropriate racist stereotypes, and it is abusive for the Member to reinforce these stereotypes in the classroom. The Member also made comments suggesting that women were not equal to men and mocked the 2SLGBTQI+ community by asking students what gender they “felt like being today? A female or a male?”. Comments such as these are not only abusive to the students towards whom they were directed, but they facilitate ongoing marginalization of women, transgender, and gender-diverse individuals. The Panel also finds that the Member’s use of profanity towards a student was verbally abusive. Teachers are expected to always be inclusive and respectful towards students. Expressing intolerant views in class is discriminatory, offensive, and contributes to the disenfranchisement of already marginalized individuals, particularly given the position of trust and authority that the Member held in relation to his students. By the nature of his conduct, the Member perpetuated systemic racism, violence and oppression of marginalized groups of society. The Panel finds the Member’s conduct amounts to verbal abuse of a student.

9The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel has received evidence that the Member’s inappropriate conduct was a source of considerable upset and discomfort for his students. In fact, the Board received an anonymous complaint from students regarding inappropriate comments made by the Member in the classroom that were described as sexist, homophobic, transphobic and racist in nature. Given the power that teachers hold in a classroom and the fact that such power can maintain and perpetuate intolerance and prejudice, the Member’s conduct would reasonably have had adverse psychological or emotional impacts on students. The Panel also finds the Member’s unnecessary outburst of anger and use of profanity towards a student to be psychologically or emotionally abusive as the student was upset and began crying following this interaction. The Panel therefore finds that the Member’s behaviour towards students was psychologically or emotionally abusive.

10The Panel finds the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by contravening the provisions of the College by-laws, which set out the professional and ethical standards for the teaching profession. In particular, the Member breached the standards of practice “Commitment to Students and Student Learning”, “Professional Knowledge” and “Leadership in Learning Communities”.

11Members are expected to be sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning (“Commitment to Students and Student Learning”). By failing to treat students equitably and with respect, the Member showed a disregard for students and their learning. Furthermore, by making repeated racist, sexist, and transphobic comments the Member created an unsafe environment for students, including those belonging to groups that have historically been marginalized and oppressed based on their race, sex, gender identity and gender expression.

12Members are also expected to be current in their professional knowledge and reflect on factors such as ethics, research, policies and legislation to inform their professional judgment and practice (“Professional Knowledge”). The Member has held a Certificate of Qualification and Registration with the College since 2006, and he ought to have been familiar with the Board’s policies and procedures that outline expectations of members to treat all students equitably and model respectful behaviours. The Member failed to do so, and his misconduct persisted despite remedial efforts by his Board, which included a professional development course on classroom/stress management.

13Members must also promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities and nurture respectful behaviour (“Leadership in Learning Communities”). The Member failed to do so by making numerous inappropriate comments to students and sharing an offensive and misleading article about residential schools with staff during a time dedicated to both learn about and celebrate Indigenous Peoples. The Member’s conduct offended and upset students and colleagues as it promoted intolerance in an overt and offensive manner, regardless of the Member’s intentions.

14The Panel also finds the Member breached the ethical standards of “Respect”, “Care”, “Trust” and “Integrity”. Members are required to honour students’ dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development and model respect for cultural values (“Respect”). The Member failed to abide by this ethical standard when he made inappropriate and disparaging comments to and in front of students, which were disrespectful and detrimental to student dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. Through his comments, the Member failed to model respect for cultural values and diversity. By perpetuating negative stereotypes, the Member failed to develop a learning environment that instills a sense of confidence, support and belonging for all students. Rather, the Member created a poisoned learning environment for students and one that is not conducive to academic success.

15Members are required to demonstrate compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for developing students’ potential (“Care”). Through his classroom comments, the Member showed a lack of compassion, acceptance and respect for racialized students, women, transgender students, and gender-diverse students. He was notably not respectful of women when he promoted sexist views suggesting that women were not worthy or equal to men in their abilities. Additionally, he attacked students’ human dignity by telling students that a staff meeting regarding a presentation on the topic of the 2SLGBTQI+ community was a “waste of time” and asking students what gender they “felt like being today”. By expressing his personal and intolerant views in front of students, the Member showed no insight or regard for students’ well-being and how they might feel or be negatively affected by his statements.

16Members are required to embody fairness, openness and honesty (“Trust”). By his conduct, the Member eroded the trust that students place in teachers by failing to treat all his students equitably and with respect.

17Finally, Members are required to exemplify honesty, reliability and moral action (“Integrity”). The Member failed to do so when he directed offensive and discriminatory comments towards students. By his conduct, the Member perpetuated negative stereotypes and systemic racism and violence, as well as demonstrated a lack of moral virtues and integrity. The Panel therefore finds the Member’s conduct fell below the professional standards of the teaching profession.

18The Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act. Section 264(1)(b) provides that it is the duty of a teacher to encourage students in the pursuit of learning. The Member’s comments to his students were demeaning, extremely offensive, and therefore negatively contributed to students’ ability to learn and grow in the classroom. Section 264(1)(c) is typically understood to mean that teachers must act as positive role models. Their conduct must be reflective of the acceptance and inclusiveness expected in Ontario’s schools. Contrarily, the Member engaged in intolerant behaviour and modelled systemic racism and violence towards marginalized individuals. By doing so, the Member taught students that intolerant and discriminatory behaviour and comments were acceptable. The Panel therefore finds the Member acted as a poor role model and failed to fulfill his duties as a teacher.

19The 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 the Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members are expected to be culturally inclusive in their interactions with students. The Member did the opposite. The Member spread intolerant views in the class with no regard for how his comments would hurt or offend students or make them feel uncomfortable or distressed in his class. The Member also shared a highly contentious article with staff at the School soon after Solidarity Day¹, which he ought to have known would be inappropriate and upsetting to his colleagues. Such conduct demonstrates considerable moral failing and a concerning lack of professional judgment by the Member. Members must maintain professionalism and always uphold the values and standards of the teaching profession. There is no place for racism, discrimination and intolerance in a learning environment and the school community. The Panel therefore finds the Member’s conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

20The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, as described above, is unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Students and members of the public expect members to be respectful, as they hold a position of trust and authority in the classroom. They are entrusted with the responsibility to shape students’ minds and behaviours. The Member’s behavior undermined the reputation of the profession, as he promoted intolerance, upheld violent stereotypes, and demeaned students.

F. PENALTY Decision

21The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on July 18, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 7 (seven) months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and 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 commencing or returning to teaching or any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries and cultural sensitivity training, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a 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 will 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;

(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) 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 addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

22The 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.² 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. Texeira, 2022 ONOCT 40; Ontario College of Teachers v. Corradetti, 2023 ONOCT 50 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Chrisopoulos, 2022 ONOCT 101 (“Chrisopoulos”).

23The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (1) the repeated nature of the Member’s conduct over multiple academic years despite prior discipline from his School administration and Board; (2) the Member’s conduct negatively affected a large number of students; and (3) the intentional and targeted nature of the Member’s behaviour toward specific marginalized groups, which perpetuated stereotypes. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past and he has participated in the disciplinary process, thereby saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and saving vulnerable students from having to testify about what was evidently a traumatic classroom experience. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

24The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to be positive role models, and their conduct must be reflective of the acceptance and inclusiveness expected in Ontario’s schools. Furthermore, members of the profession are expected to be culturally sensitive in their interactions with students. The Member did the opposite. By repeatedly engaging in discriminatory conduct towards students such as mocking members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community and reinforcing racist and sexist stereotypes, the Member failed to meet these expectations. 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.

25Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a seven-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. Moreover, the Panel recognizes that changing societal values in relation to racism and discriminatory conduct require a greater denunciation (see: Chrisopoulos, at paragraph 22). In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on August 2, 2024, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

26The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundaries and cultural sensitivity training 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. The coursework should provide the Member with an awareness of the adverse impacts of racism, oppression, conscious bias and stereotypes in a learning environment. It should also provide the Member with strategies to implement anti-oppressive approaches and unlearn discriminatory practices and develop a clear understanding of how to be more culturally responsive in his professional practice.

27The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Referred to as National Indigenous Peoples Day by the Government of Canada.
2. 2See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.