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
Candice Joan Higgs, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CANDICE JOAN HIGGS (REGISTRATION #197504)
PANEL: Emma Rhodes, Chair Brian Serafini, OCT Kayla Stephenson
HEARD: September 9, 2024
Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers Michelle Sun, for Candice Joan Higgs Ahmad Mozaffari, 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 September 9, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.
2Candice Joan Higgs (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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 August 25, 2023 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Candice Joan Higgs is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) she 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)1;
(b) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 265(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(c) she 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);
(d) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Candice Joan Higgs is a retired 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.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Durham District School Board (the “Board”) as a Principal at Durham Alternative Secondary School (the “School”) with sites in Oshawa, Pickering and Port Perry, Ontario.
Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition administration
The School offered Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (“PLAR”) which is a formal evaluation and credit granting process whereby mature students may obtain credits for prior learning. Prior learning includes the knowledge and skills that students have acquired, in both formal and informal ways, outside secondary school.
Eligible students must be (a) at least 18 years of age on or before December 31st of the school year in which they return to school; and (b) not have been enrolled in a day school program for a period of at least one year and be enrolled in a secondary school program for the purpose of obtaining an Ontario Secondary School Diploma.
According to the Ontario Ministry of Education’s Policy/Program Memorandum 132, PLAR procedures for mature students are to be carried out under the direction of the school principal, who is responsible for the implementation of PLAR in accordance with the memorandum. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the Ontario Ministry’s Policy/Program Memorandum 132 (“PPM 132”).
During the 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 academic years, the Member kept a file in her office labelled “PLAR Holdbacks” relating to students who had been advised by their teachers, or screened by the School’s guidance department, as being eligible for PLAR, but with which the Member disagreed. These students had fulfilled some, or all, of the requirements asked of them, but the Member determined they were ineligible for PLAR for various reasons, and therefore, refused to grant credit for the work they had done.
Instead of denying these students PLAR credit, the Member imposed her own additional requirements on them to get good marks and to demonstrate consistent school attendance, after which time she would unilaterally agree to grant them their credits. The Ministry Policy did not impose either of these requirements, nor allow arbitrary additional expectations to be placed on students in order for them to be eligible to receive PLAR credit.
There were approximately 12 students whose files were in the “Holdbacks” folder. Only one student was granted PLAR credits by the Member because she subsequently became eligible. The rest were not granted between one to twelve credits because the Member determined them to be ineligible, notwithstanding what they had been informed by their teachers or the School’s Guidance department. In at least one case, this holdback resulted in a student being unable to attend College.
Oversight of the Supervised Alternative Learning Plan
The Ministry of Education (the “Ministry”) provides students aged 14 to 17, who have significant difficulties with regular attendance at school, with the opportunity to participate in a Supervised Alternative Learning Plan (“SALP”). The Ministry imposes numerous requirements on school boards with respect to the administration of the SALP.
In the 2013/2014 academic year, the Ministry conducted an audit and imposed a significant financial penalty on the Board for failing to comply with the SALP requirements. As a result, the Board worked with the Member to ensure future compliance with the identified issues.
During the 2016/2017 academic year, the Ministry conducted an enrolment audit on the School and three other schools of the Board. Among other things, the SALP program was reviewed, including a review of enrolment, pupil admission, accounting of part time and full time pupils, pupil prolonged absence procedures and alternative program delivery.
The audit revealed that the Board had failed to comply, in all three secondary schools, with certain requirements. In particular, it was determined that (a) credit-bearing courses were being scheduled for less than the minimum 70 minutes of instruction per school day required for students to earn a full-time credit; and (b) the Board was not complying with requirements for student transfer dates, student prolonged absences and students enrolled in the SALP.
Within the School, the SALP was overseen by a designated Program Coordinator and a Program Superintendent. They were responsible for the implementation and day to day management of the program. The Member was required by Board policy, as the Principal of the School which housed the SALP program, to verify that the Ministry requirements were being properly met and sign off on the timetable provided by the Program Coordinator and the Program Superintendent.
The second audit also resulted in a total negative funding impact on the Board of $175,000 from all four schools audited, due to irregularities in the School attendance records where students were treated as part-time rather than full-time because of the improper scheduling of credit-bearing courses through the SALP.
Improper Attendance on School Property
In May 2018, the Board commenced an investigation of the Member. The Member was placed on an administrative leave, advised to remain on home assignment and not to have contact with anyone at the School or to attend on School property.
In August 2018, the Member learned that the Board investigation had been completed. The Member also found out that a new principal had been hired to replace her at the School. She and her association representative made attempts to contact the Board to find out about next steps. When they did not receive a reply, contrary to instructions, the Member attended on School property to retrieve her personal belongings.
The Member entered her former office and observed a file on her desk containing confidential Student Status Sheets for the students in her PLAR holdback folder. The Member took these documents with her and produced them in a subsequent meeting with the Board.
Board Investigation
Following receipt of a complaint about the Member in May 2018, the Board hired an independent investigator to investigate the allegations. The investigation concluded that the Member had failed to uphold Board Policies, Terms and Conditions of Employment for Principals and Vice Principals and Ministry Guidelines.
By letter dated November 29, 2018, the Member was terminated for cause from her employment, effective immediately. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the Board’s termination letter to the Member.
The Member grieved her termination and the parties were able to resolve the matter on terms which included the rescinding of her termination.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional and dishonourable) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.
In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, 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 Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on September 9, 2024 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(14), 1(15), 1(18 – unprofessional and dishonourable) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 20 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with her professional responsibilities as an administrator. For instance, the Member failed to properly oversee School credits/programs in accordance with the Ministry of Education’s (“Ministry”) procedures (i.e. the PLAR and SALP).
8The Panel finds that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by failing to comply with section 322 of the by-laws, which set out the standards of practice and ethical standards of the teaching profession at the time of the misconduct. In particular, the Member breached the standards of practice of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning”, “Professional Knowledge” and “Leadership in Learning Communities”. The standard of practice of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” requires members to be dedicated to the care and commitment of students and treat them equitably and with respect. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member held back 12 students from obtaining PLAR credits, despite them being technically eligible to receive these credits. The Member used her own criteria to determine if students were eligible instead of the appropriate Ministry-imposed requirements. Thus, the Member failed to treat these students equitably and to hold them to the same standards as other students in the Board. The standard of practice of “Professional Knowledge” requires members to be “current in their professional knowledge and recognize its relationship to practice”. The Member ought to have been familiar with Ministry and Board policies and procedures regarding the PLAR and SALP programs and should have applied them accordingly. She failed to do so by her misconduct. The standard of practice of “Leadership in Learning Communities” requires members “to promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities”. The Member failed to work collaboratively with the teachers and the School’s guidance department, thus failing to embody this standard of professional practice.
9The Panel further finds that the Member failed to adhere to the ethical standards of the profession. The Member failed to abide by the ethical standards of “Care” which requires members to express “their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice” and “Respect” which consists of “trust and fair-mindedness”. By holding back students’ PLAR credits, the Member failed to prioritize students’ well being and failed to fairly and appropriately give credit to students and their work. The ethical standard of “Trust” “embodies fairness, openness and honesty”. The Member breached the trust placed in her by her employer by failing to follow through with her responsibility to ensure that the School complied with PLAR and SALP procedures. Finally, “Integrity” consists of “honesty, reliability and moral action”, the Member failed to demonstrate integrity when she took a file (containing confidential documents) home with her when she improperly attended the School, contrary to instructions given by her Board.
10The Member failed to comply with subsection 265(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Subsection 265(1) sets out the duties of a principal, in addition to the principal’s duties as a teacher. Subsection 265(1)(b) requires a principal “to develop co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of staff of the school”. Despite her staff (the student’s teachers and School’s guidance department) determining students to be eligible for PLAR credits, the Member withheld their credits for work they had completed until they complied with her requirements. In doing so, she neglected her responsibility to appropriately oversee PLAR credits. Such behaviour is incompatible with developing co-operation and coordination of effort among staff. Furthermore, subsection 265 (1) c) and d) require the principal to register the students and ensure that their attendance is recorded for every school day. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the School had irregularities in student records where the Member, as Principal, was responsible for overseeing.
11The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). Dishonourable conduct includes conduct that is dishonest and casts doubt on a Member’s ability to practice the profession. The Member acted dishonestly when she failed to comply with the Ministry’s PLAR procedure requirements. The Member imposed her own additional requirements for students’ eligibility to obtain PLAR credits and refused to grant them the credit if they did not comply with her requirements. The requirements imposed by the Member were not required by the Ministry. In at least one case, the Member’s holdback resulted in a student being unable to attend College. This behaviour casts a serious doubt on the Member’s ability to discharge of her professional responsibility as a principal. The Member also demonstrated poor professional judgment by failing to properly oversee the SALP program. Finally, it was unprofessional for the Member to gain access to the School while placed on administrative leave and advised to remain on home assignment.
12Finally, the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Members, and especially administrators, hold a position of immense responsibility in the school community. The Member acted in a way that was contrary to Board and Ministry policies. Members of the public are entitled to assume that members in leadership roles, such as the Member, will act with sound professional judgment. By her dishonest actions the Member disregarded her professional responsibilities, which undermined the reputation of the teaching profession.
F. PENALTY DECISION
13The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 9, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
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”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of one (1) month commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1st and August 15th, the suspension will commence on September 1st.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:
(a) prior to the Member returning to teaching, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional ethics, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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 her 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
14The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.3 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. Burwell, 2021 ONOCT 104, Ontario College of Teachers v. Burke, 2018 ONOCT 75, and Ontario College of Teachers v. McEwen, 2014 ONOCT 66.
15The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are three aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member was the principal of the School, in this role, she had significant power and was expected to act as a role model. Second, the Member’s behaviour negatively impacted students, for instance, the Member’s holdback resulted in at least one student not being able to attend College. Finally, the Member’s misconduct included a number of instances of misconduct and was indicative of a pattern of mishandling her duties as principal. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, she expressed sincere remorse, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.
16The Panel finds that the Member’s misconduct warrants a reprimand. Administrators are expected to always behave with integrity and act as positive role models. The Member failed to do so by failing to comply with Ministry and Board policies and procedures. 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.
17Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a one-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented to the Panel are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is unacceptable. In accordance with the parties’ joint submission, the Member’s suspension will begin on September 24, 2024, which is 15 days after the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.
18The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional ethics will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a member and administrator within the teaching profession, and will help her to make better decisions in her professional practice.
19The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: September 12, 2024
Emma Rhodes Chair, Discipline Panel
Brian Serafini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Kayla Stephenson Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- At the time of the hearing, section 32 was amended to be section 26 of the by-laws.
- At the time of the hearing, section 32 was amended to be section 26 of the by-laws.
- See R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.