Ontario College of Teachers v. Ojero, 2024 ONOCT 37

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Ojero 2024 ONOCT 37 Date: 2024-09-20

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 Carlos Angel Ojero, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

CARLOS ANGEL OJERO (REGISTRATION #522165)

PANEL: Kim Westfall-Connor, Chair Anthony Jeethan, OCT Adam Lee, OCT

HEARD: September 12, 2024

Jordan Stone and Sarah O’Neill, for the Ontario College of Teachers Christopher Perri, for Carlos Angel Ojero 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 September 12, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Carlos Angel Ojero (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 Amended Notice of Hearing No. 6404 dated April 23, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Carlos Angel Ojero 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 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) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

5The allegations against the Member in the Amended Notice of Hearing No. 6688 dated April 23, 2024 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Carlos Angel Ojero 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 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) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

6The parties have agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations set out in these Notices of Hearing, in accordance with subsection 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

C. STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS

7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 3), which provides the following:

1. Carlos Angel Ojero 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 Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board as an occasional teacher.

Notice of Hearing (File 6404)

3. On February 7, 2020, the Member was on an assignment as a daily casual occasional teacher in a grade [XXX] class at [XXX] Catholic Secondary School in Hamilton, Ontario. When a student asked for help, the Member told the student to “ask the little Asian girl”, in reference to a different student who was of East-Asian descent.

4. As an occasional teacher, the Member was not familiar with the names of the students in the class referenced above. He referred to the student as “the little Asian girl” because he did not know her name. The Member did not intend to cause any harm or embarrassment to any of the students in his class, but recognizes that this comment was inappropriate and culturally insensitive.

Notice of Hearing (File 6688)

5. On September 30, 2021, the Member was on assignment as a daily casual occasional teacher for a grade [XXX] class at [XXX] Catholic Secondary School in Hamilton, Ontario. The regular teacher left a lesson plan directing that students watch a video lesson on their phones using earbuds. The regular teacher had previously advised students they would be watching a video lesson in class independently on their phones. The Member did not follow that portion of the lesson plan and insisted that the entire class watch the video lesson together. When students tried to watch the video lesson on their phones as they had expected would occur, the Member told them to put away their phones or he would confiscate them. The regular classroom teacher (who was at the school that day) had to come into the class to speak to the Member and the students about the lesson plan. Some of the students in the class later complained to the regular classroom teacher that the Member’s conduct and deviation from the lesson plan (i.e., watching the video as a group rather than individually) caused them confusion.

6. On October 27, 2021, the Member was on assignment as a daily casual occasional teacher at [XXX] Catholic Secondary School in Ancaster, Ontario. He was assigned to a grade [XXX] class despite the fact his teaching qualifications are in the areas of math and science. During class, the Member discussed the topic of residential schools with the class. During that discussion he:

(a) initially stated that the Catholic Church and the Vatican held no responsibility for residential schools, before later clarifying that he meant there were some good priests and nuns who had involvement with residential schools;

(b) interrupted some students during the discussion, although some students also interrupted him;

(c) used the term “Native” to describe Indigenous peoples;

(d) when a student asked him to use the word “Indigenous” rather than “Aboriginal”, the Member said, “That’s censorship”;

(e) stated that Indigenous peoples “have a long list of demands and they won’t be happy until they get what they want”;

(f) related the discussion to the “Blacks in America” and “Latinos in America”;

(g) stated that activism related to residential schools was about giving money;

(h) after being advised by a student that his comments made the student uncomfortable, stated that when people get too comfortable they go against God; and

(i) called a student a “clown” while asking him to leave the class.

7. On January 26, 2022, the Member was on assignment as a daily casual occasional teacher in a grade [XXX] class at [XXX] Catholic Secondary School in Stoney Creek, Ontario. The Member had taught the same class for the previous three days. During class on January 26, 2022, the Member:

(a) called a student who was of middle eastern descent “Mohammed” and “Mustafa”, which was not the student’s name, although the Member believed it was. When the student corrected him again, the Member did not apologize, and instead said, “Do you know how many Mohammeds I have taught over the years”. As a daily occasional teacher, the Member did not know all of the students’ names in the class; and

(b) told a student who was wearing his hoodie up with the drawstrings pulled tight that it looked like he was wearing a hijab and that the student was probably used to the heat because he was from South America. When the student took the hoodie off his head, the Member said, “You finally took off the hijab”. When the student asked the Member how his hoodie was related to a hijab, the Member said, “That’s the Canadian male version of a hijab”.

8. The Member did not intend to cause any harm or offense to students when he made the comments described in paragraphs 6 and 7. However, he recognizes that his comments were inappropriate and culturally insensitive.

PLEA OF NO CONTEST

9. 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 to 8 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).

10. The Member hereby acknowledges that paragraphs 3-8 of the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly:

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

(b) 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); and

(c) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

11. By this document the Member states that:

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

(b) he understands that 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 with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

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

12. 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, for the purposes of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, 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.

13. 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

8Counsel for the College requested that the particulars of the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph 4 of the Amended Notice of Hearing No. 6404 (Exhibit 1) and paragraph 6 of the Amended Notice of Hearing No. 6688 (Exhibit 2), be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegations were being sought as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest. The Panel granted these requests.

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 September 12, 2024, finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7), 1(18) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

10During the hearing, the Panel conducted an oral plea inquiry and confirmed that the Member’s plea was given voluntarily and unequivocally. The Panel is satisfied that the Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8 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 engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behaviour and made numerous offensive comments to students with respect to students’ ethnicities, the Catholic Church, Indigenous Peoples and residential schools.

11The 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 inappropriate, racist, derogatory, and abusive comments to his students. The Member made a number of racist comments to students including referring to a student of middle eastern descent as “Mustafa”—which was not his correct name. Moreover, when the student corrected the Member, he was flippant in his reply stating: “Do you know how many Mohammeds I have taught over the years[?]”. These comments reflect inappropriate racist stereotypes, and it is abusive and unprofessional for a Member to reinforce these stereotypes in the classroom. The Member also made derogatory and disparaging remarks about Indigenous Peoples, which included stating that Indigenous Peoples “have a long list of demands and they won’t be happy until they get what they want”, and that “activism related to residential schools was about giving money”. Moreover, when a student informed the Member that his comments made them feel uncomfortable, the Member responded that “when people get too comfortable they go against God.” This was harmful and an entirely inappropriate way to respond to a student’s concern and discomfort in the classroom. Members of the teaching profession, including occasional teachers, are expected to be inclusive and culturally responsive towards students. By making racist, discriminatory and demeaning comments, the Member perpetuated stereotypes and prejudice of marginalized groups within society. The Panel therefore finds the Member’s conduct amounts to verbal abuse of a student or students.

12The Member committed acts that, in regard to the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Panel finds the Member’s comments and behaviour abhorrent. Members of the teaching profession hold a privileged position in society as role models for students and the community. They are expected to exemplify moral virtues and demonstrate cultural competence, respect and professionalism. The Member fell far short of these expectations. The Member spread intolerant views in the class, which offended the students and made them uncomfortable. The Panel is particularly alarmed by the Member’s offensive comments about Indigenous Peoples. These comments were harmful and his decision to make such comments was dishonourable and unprofessional. By his conduct, the Member fostered disrespect towards marginalized groups of society. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct can therefore be characterized as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

13The 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, tolerant, and culturally competent, as members 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 behaviour undermined the reputation of the profession, as he promoted prejudice, upheld violent stereotypes, and demeaned students.

F. PENALTY Decision

14The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on September 12, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Discipline Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand, which will be delivered electronically, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers;

2. The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 2 months commencing on the 15^th^ calendar day following the date of the Decision and the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter. If the Decision and Order is rendered between May 1^st^ and August 1^st^, the suspension will commence on September 1^st^;

3. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the date [sic] of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, coursework of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding equity, diversity, and inclusion, including cultural sensitivity, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide the course practitioner approved by the Registrar a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 3(a)(i) above, the course practitioner shall provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee's concerns regarding the Member's professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member and the assignments to be completed by the Member; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in paragraph 3(a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a report from the course practitioner 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

15The 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. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48, Ontario College of Teachers v Vandenberg, 2018 ONOCT 15, Ontario College of Teachers v Vite, 2020 ONOCT 145 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Texeira, 2022 ONOCT 40.

16The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are: (1) the significant number of instances in which the Member made inappropriate comments to and about students; (2) the Member’s conduct negatively affected a number of students; (3) the fact that the Member’s conduct caused students to feel uncomfortable, confused and upset; and (4) the intentional and targeted nature of the Member’s behaviour towards specific marginalized groups, which perpetuated harmful stereotypes. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member did not contest his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, 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.

17The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models for students and to be culturally respectful in their interactions with students. Moreover, members’ conduct must be reflective of the inclusive environment expected in Ontario’s diverse schools. By his misconduct, the Member failed to foster such an environment. 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.

18Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a two-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 September 28, 2024, which is 15 calendar days following the date of the Panel’s Oral Decision and Order.

19The Panel finds that the coursework of instruction regarding equity, diversity, and inclusion, will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The Panel also notes a need for work on an understanding of Truth and Reconciliation, given the nature of the Member’s comments with respect to Indigenous Peoples and residential schools. The coursework will ultimately 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, unconscious bias and stereotypes in a learning environment. It should also provide the Member with a greater understanding of Truth and Reconciliation, as well as 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.

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.