DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Schmoll 2024 ONOCT 05

Date: 2024-02-22

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

Annalisa Kay Schmoll, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ANNALISA KAY SCHMOLL (REGISTRATION #496754)

PANEL: Kimberley Westfall-Connor, Chair

Stefano Fornazzari, OCT

Andrew Glenny

HEARD: February 16, 2024

Ava Arbuck, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Mark Joseph and Adam Blake-Gallipeau, for Annalisa Kay Schmoll

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

2Annalisa Kay Schmoll (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 June 13, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Annalisa Kay Schmoll 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 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(b) she 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);

(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).

5The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated September 27, 2022 (Exhibit 2) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that the Annalisa Kay Schmoll 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 26 of the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);

(b) she 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);

(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).

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. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

7College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 3), which provides the following:

1. Annalisa Kay Schmoll also known as Annalisa Kay Meyer 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 District School Board Ontario North East (the “Board”) as an occasional teacher. In that role, she was also known as Annalisa Selmeci.

3. The Member maintained a public Facebook page. Her Facebook profile on the page identified her as a teacher and as an employee of the Board.

4. Between April 2021 and June 2021, the Member posted and/or re-posted statements about the COVID-19 pandemic and/or measures to address the pandemic which were false, misleading, and capable of causing readers to be reluctant to comply with prevailing public health measures to address the pandemic. Examples of the Member’s posts on her public Facebook page are attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, and include the following:

(a) “Stop wearing masks, stop social distancing, stop damaging your immune system because of bad advice. If everyone entered the stores without masks, they aren’t going to throw everyone out. Stand up for yourselves and your children. Stop being bullied into doing things you know are wrong. Be bold, be strong, be United!”;

(b) “I will NOT be masked, tested, tracked poisoned or chipped to support this orchestrated LIE! This is NOT my ‘new normal’ #I DO NOT CONSENT”;

(c) “RECOMMENDING an EXPERIMENTAL and unapproved injection for CHILDREN is unethical, unscientific, immoral, and WRONG”;

(d) “Adults telling kids to wear masks have no idea the damage they’re inflicting. Adults might think children can handle the mask wearing but they do not understand that children need twice as much oxygen to function normally as adults…”;

(e) “Forcing children to wear masks is CHILD ABUSE! Change my mind”;

(f) “You fight admirably against experimental testing of animals in government labs but you let that same government inject your children with experimental poisonous vaccines. REALLY? IS ANYONE REALLY THINKING ANYMORE? IT’S SIMPLY UNBELIEVAB[L]E!”.

5. During this same timeframe, the Member also posted and/or reposted the following statements on her public Facebook page:

(a) an image of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with the caption: “We lied about helping natives. We lied about helping veterans and seniors! We brought unknown numbers of Islamic terrorists into Canada!...We plan to bring millions from Islamic countries here!! Are you stupid enough to vote for us again?!”;

(b) an image of athletes wrestling with the caption: “They are NOT ‘courageous transgender athletes.’ They ARE just boys beating up on girls.”

6. With respect to the post at paragraph 5(a) above, the Member reposted the meme in order to draw attention to what she interpreted as failures of the Trudeau government, and did not consider that they were discriminatory against immigrants and refugees. With respect to the post at paragraph 5(b) above regarding Transgender athletes, the Member reposted the meme with the intention of highlighting the unfairness of trans women competing against and physically injuring women in sports. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” are copies of these Facebook posts by the Member.

7. The Member’s Facebook posts and reposts could be accessed and viewed by members of the general public, including students. The Member acknowledges that readers of her posts and/or re-posts could interpret that the Member:

(a) was discouraging people from wearing masks or getting vaccinated;

(b) had not been complying with public health directives regarding social distancing;

(c) was encouraging people not to comply with government and other official directives about such measures;

(d) was encouraging people to conclude they were not at risk from the COVID-19 virus;

(e) was encouraging the general public to conclude that vaccines are unsafe for children;

(f) was encouraging the public to conclude that public health restrictions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic were comparable to directives from Nazis.

Board Investigation

8. The Member’s Facebook posts described above were reported to the Board by concerned members of the public. The Board investigated and issued a letter of expectation to the Member and informed the Member that, “Although you are entitled to freedom of speech, some of the comments posted would be viewed as inappropriate and as a result could be offensive to certain individuals in our schools.” The Board also stated in its letter of expectation that because the Member identified herself as a teacher working for the Board, her anti-masking commentary “openly challenged the direction of the Ministry of Education, and ultimately the Board.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the letter of expectation dated June 23, 2021.

Current Status and Acknowledgement

9. The Member is currently employed by the Huron Superior Catholic District School Board as an occasional teacher.

10. The Member did not discuss her posts, reposts, or personal opinions with students, colleagues, or within the schools where she taught at the relevant time. The Member acknowledges that she did not consider her posting and/or reposting of controversial comments and memes may have been offensive to individuals in schools and her community, and has since deleted them. The Member has also removed any connection to the Board from her profile page, and currently maintains a private Facebook page.

GUILTY PLEA

11. By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs above (the “Admitted Facts”).

12. 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), and 1(19).

13. 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.

14. 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

8Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, the Member’s guilty plea during the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 16, 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) and 1(19).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

9The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 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 engaged in a pattern of disseminating inappropriate, unprofessional and disrespectful comments on social media.

10The Panel finds that the Member 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) when she violated the professional and ethical standards of the teaching profession. In particular, the Panel found that the Member breached the standards of “Commitment to Students and Student Learning”, “Professional Knowledge”, and “Leadership in Learning Communities.” Pursuant to these standards, members are expected to treat students equitably and to be sensitive to factors that influence their learning and well-being. Members should also be current in their knowledge and incorporate ethics, research and policies in their professional judgment. The Member failed to adhere to these standards when she posted false and misleading posts which were capable of causing readers to be reluctant to comply with prevailing public health measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic. By espousing intolerance and posting messages that could be interpreted as advising public viewers to defy the Board and government health protocols the Member created an unsafe and uncomfortable learning environment for students, especially those whose identities and backgrounds were the subject of the Member’s offensive comments. Students should not be exposed to such discriminatory statements from a teacher like the Member, who holds a privileged position of trust and authority in the community.

11The Member also failed to adhere to the ethical standards of the teaching profession The Panel finds that the Member failed to follow all of the standards – care, respect, trust, and integrity. Members are expected to inform their professional judgment with these standards and to use these standards to guide their actions in their profession. The Member failed to do so when she made or reposted inappropriate comments on social media about health policies during the pandemic as well as about refugees, immigrants and trans people. She demonstrated an appalling lack of acceptance, respect and compassion for immigrants, refugees, and trans athletes. By identifying herself as a teacher and publicly expressing such sentiments, the Member failed to show regard for students’ well-being and how they, the school community, and the public may be negatively affected by reading her disrespectful posts and reposts.

12The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher, contrary to subsection 1(15) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers hold a position of power and authority in the school community, and they have the unique privilege and ability to shape students’ opinions and behaviours. As such, they are expected to demonstrate moral virtues and act as a positive role model for students. The Member failed to do so by openly challenging prevailing public health measures and urging others to do the same, without any regard as to how it could impact the safety of her students or the public. By doing so, she abused her position of authority and trust. The Member’s behaviour was especially problematic because it occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people turned to trusted members of the community such as teachers, for information and advice. The Member’s culturally insensitive comments were insensitive, offensive, and contrary to her duties to be an inclusive role model. These comments could have been reasonably perceived as discriminatory towards refugee, immigrant and trans students. By posting and reposting such comments to her personal social media page, she promoted stigmatization of her students and members of the community. Overall, the Panel finds that the Member failed to exemplify ethical or professional duties as expected. The Member’s prompt action in removing her posts when the misconduct was brought to her attention does not excuse her failure to make responsible public statements with the understanding that teachers are held to a higher standard of behaviour in light of their privileged position in society.

13The Panel finds that, having regard to all the circumstances, the Member’s conduct would reasonably be viewed by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Given their unique and privileged position of trust and authority, members are obliged to act with professionalism at all times. Failure to do so raises concerns about their ability to exercise their professional and moral judgment. In disseminating problematic, disrespectful and offensive comments through public forums, the Member showed an appalling lack of moral and professional judgment. Her deeply offensive behaviour created an unsafe learning environment for students of diverse backgrounds and beliefs, and has no place in Ontario’s school system and community.

14The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct was unbecoming a member, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Conduct unbecoming a member includes “off duty” conduct that undermines the reputation of the teaching profession. The Member’s misconduct in expressing intolerant views in a disrespectful manner on a public forum eroded the trust the public places in her in teaching and caring for their children. Through her misconduct, the Member has undermined the public’s confidence and trust in the profession as a whole.

F. PENALTY DECISION

15The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 4), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on February 16, 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 impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration:

(a) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries with a focus on the appropriate use of social media, 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. A written decision with reasons will follow.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

16The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest.¹ The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Flitton, 2021 ONOCT 25; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Clark, 2021 ONOCT 4, 2021 ONOCT 04.

17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the Member’s posts expressly challenged the Board and the government’s health directives during a public health crisis, including those that applied to Ontario schools, without thinking about the effect that her posts could have on students and the school community; her failure to consider how discriminatory her comments were to refugees, immigrants and transpeople; and the fact that she was an experienced teacher who ought to have been well-familiar with her ethical duties and responsibilities. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member’s comments were not directed at students or made at school; and her timely action to rectify the situation by removing her posts and any connection to the Board on her Facebook page, when the Board alerted her to their concerns. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

18The Panel finds that the Member’s problematic electronic communication warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to serve as role models for students and demonstrate care and responsibility when disseminating information online, which the Member failed to do by posting inappropriate comments about the pandemic and health policies and disrespectful comments about vulnerable communities in a public forum. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

19The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundaries with a focus on the appropriate use of social media will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students and online.

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; Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453.