DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Shahnazarian 2025 ONOCT 16

Date: 2025-03-14

DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION

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 Armen Shahnazarian, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

ARMEN SHAHNAZARIAN (REGISTRATION #621347)

PANEL: Kim Westfall-Connor, Chair Terrence Singh, OCT Andrew Glenny

HEARD: February 19, 2025

COUNSEL: Sarah O’Neill and Jordan Stone, for the Ontario College of Teachers No one appearing for Armen Shahnazarian Emily Graham, 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 19, 2025, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Armen Shahnazarian (the “Member”) did not attend or participate in the hearing and did not have legal representation.

3At the outset of the hearing, Counsel for the College sought permission to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Member. Counsel for the College submitted the Affidavit of Amanda Fernandez sworn on February 11, 2025 (Exhibit 2), to establish that the Member had been given notice of the allegations against him, the time and date of the hearing. In her affidavit, Ms. Fernandez, a law clerk with Glick Feinberg Stone LLP, outlined her communications, and College Counsel’s communications, with the Member and provided proof of service of all required documents.

4The Panel requested that College Counsel make another attempt to contact the Member by email to inform him that the hearing had convened and to confirm whether he intended to attend the hearing. The Panel delayed the start of the hearing by approximately 15 minutes to allow the Member time to appear. The Member did not appear, and College Counsel confirmed that she did not receive a response to her email from the Member.

5Based on the evidence filed, the Panel was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents, and that he was aware of the time and date of the hearing. The Panel therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

A. PUBLICATION ban

6The 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. overview

7The College alleged that the Member engaged in professional misconduct during the 2022-2023 academic year by initiating a verbal confrontation with a student in his class. The College also alleged that the Member made various comments and engaged in conduct during this exchange that was inappropriate, offensive, and unwelcome.

8The Panel’s task is to determine whether the facts alleged by the College have been proven on a balance of probabilities and if so, whether the Member’s conduct gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. For the reasons that follow, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in professional misconduct as defined in subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

C. THE ALLEGATIONS

9The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated July 22, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

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

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS

1. Armen Shahnazarian is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] Collegiate Institute (the “School”) in Toronto, Ontario.

3. In or about the 2022-2023 academic year, Student 1 was a male student in Grade [XXX] at the School.

4. On or about February 24, 2023, the Member made comments and/or engaged in behaviour towards Student 1 and/or other students that he knew or ought to have known was inappropriate, offensive, and/or unwelcome, including but not limited to:

(a) initiating a verbal confrontation with Student 1;

(b) telling Student 1 to shut up, or words to that effect;

(c) telling Student 1 that he would physically assault Student 1, including but not limited to that he would:

(i) slap Student 1, or words to that effect;

(ii) throw Student 1 against a window, or words to that effect;

(iii) smash Student 1’s head against a window, or words to that effect; and/or

(iv) hit Student 1 so hard that he would fall to the ground and would need help getting up or words to that effect.

(d) telling Student 1 that he should and/or would go to jail, or words to that effect;

(e) telling Student 1 that he was fat, insinuating that he was overweight, and/or mocking his weight, or words to that effect;

(f) swearing at Student 1 and/or the class; and/or

(g) showing his middle finger to Student 1 and/or the class.

D. THE MEMBER’S PLEA

10As the Member was not present, the Panel proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

E. THE EVIDENCE

11The College presented oral evidence in order to prove the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. As the Member chose not to participate in the hearing, no evidence was presented in his defence.

(1) Oral Evidence

12The College called one witness, [XXX], who was a student present in the Member’s classroom at all material times. For reasons that will be set out in greater detail below, as needed, the Panel found that [XXX] evidence was credible and consistent with respect to all material facts.

Testimony of [XXX]

13[XXX] testified that he attended the School in 2023 and graduated from a different high school in 2024. He testified that the Member taught at the School, and that one day, in late winter or early spring 2023, [XXX] was sitting in the classroom with his back turned to the Member when he heard an argument between the Member and Student 1. Although [XXX] testified that he “missed out on part of the conversation that led to the whole argument”, he testified that he witnessed how the Member “went off on one of the students”. In particular, [XXX] testified that during this interaction, the Member’s voice was “loud” and he “sounded upset and frustrated”. [XXX] confirmed that the Member was speaking specifically to Student 1 and did not address a group of students.

14[XXX] testified that during the Member and Student 1’s verbal confrontation, the Member “said something along the lines of he’s going to knock [the] student’s head through the window and they will have to scrape him off the floor”. He also testified that the Member stated that “the teacher will still be teaching in the school and [the] student would go to jail”.

15[XXX] testified that the Member then told Student 1 to “pick up a mirror and look at yourself”. He also testified that he thought the Member was “pointing out [Student 1’s] complexion” (meaning body type), which was “slightly overweight”.

16[XXX] testified that at the end of the Member’s verbal confrontation with Student 1, the Member told Student 1 to “shut the f up”. Upon further questioning by College Counsel, [XXX] confirmed that the Member did use profanity rather than say the letter “f”. [XXX] confirmed that there were other students in the room at the time the Member made this statement. [XXX] testified that the Member showed his middle finger to students before closing his laptop and leaving the classroom at the end of the verbal confrontation with Student 1. The Panel notes that although [XXX] stated that he was unsure of the exact sequence of events, whether the Member showed his middle finger first and then closed his laptop, or vice versa, he confirmed that the Member did in fact show his middle finger towards students.

17With respect to the impact of the Member’s behaviour, [XXX] testified that he was concerned that the Member’s verbal confrontation with Student 1 might escalate into a physical interaction. He testified that Student 1 seemed taken aback and upset by the Member’s behaviour.

F. SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

18College Counsel submitted that the evidence presented to the Panel proves each of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities. College Counsel submitted that the Panel should therefore find that the Member engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

19College Counsel submitted that [XXX] evidence was credible and reliable (Pitts and Director of Family Benefits Branch of the Ministry of Community & Social Services, 1985 CanLII 2053 (ON SC) (“Pitts”)). In particular, [XXX] directly observed the events listed in the particulars of the Notice of Hearing; he was present in the classroom and heard the Member’s comments clearly; he was an independent witness and there was no evidence of any reason for him to be biased against the Member or partisan in favour of the College; he told a clear and consistent story; and, he did not make any prior inconsistent statement.

20College Counsel submitted that [XXX] testimony established the factual particulars outlined in the Notice of Hearing. Specifically, College Counsel asked the Panel to accept that [XXX] testimony established that, on or about February 24, 2023, the Member engaged in a verbal confrontation towards Student 1; the Member raised his voice towards Student 1 while other students were present in the classroom; he used profanity and threatened physical violence against Student 1; he showed his middle finger towards students; and he told Student 1 to look at himself in the mirror, and in saying so, he pointed out Student 1’s body type (being overweight). [XXX] testified that he was concerned that the situation would escalate to a physical interaction and confirmed that Student 1 appeared upset by the Member’s conduct.

G. DECISION ON FINDING

(1) Onus and standard of proof

21The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.

(2) Decision

22Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of College Counsel, the Panel rendered an oral decision on February 19, 2025, 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(18) and 1(19).

H. REASONS FOR DECISION

23The Panel has carefully reviewed all of the evidence and submissions presented in this matter. In the reasons that follow, the Panel comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Panel first sets out its factual findings and then explains why these facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

24The Panel finds that [XXX] evidence is credible and reliable (Pitts) and that his testimony was clear, articulate and factual. [XXX] was honest and forthright about details he could not remember, namely, whether the Member showed his middle finger first and then closed his laptop—or if it was the reverse—before leaving the classroom. The Panel gives full weight to his evidence, which was uncontradicted since the Member did not attend the hearing or provide any evidence in his defence.

(1) Factual Findings

25The Panel finds that the College has proven all of the particulars set out in the Notice of Hearing on a balance of probabilities, except for particular 4(c)(i). In particular, the Panel accepts that the Member’s conduct and behaviour were so objectionable on its face that he subjectively ought to have known that it was inappropriate, offensive or unwelcome.

(a) Verbal Confrontation with Student 1 – Particular 4(a)

26The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, on or about February 24, 2023, the Member initiated a verbal confrontation with Student 1, as alleged in particular 4(a) of the Notice of Hearing. The Panel accepts [XXX] uncontradicted testimony that he witnessed the Member engage in a verbal confrontation with Student 1 on or about February 24, 2023.The Panel accepts [XXX] testimony that he did not witness the beginning of the verbal confrontation but heard the Member use a “loud” voice to address Student 1. [XXX] testified that during this verbal confrontation, the Member “sounded upset and frustrated”. The Panel is satisfied that the Member, more likely than not, initiated a verbal confrontation with Student 1.

(b) Telling Student 1 to Shut Up - Particular 4(b)

27The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, on or about February 24, 2023, the Member told Student 1 to shut up or words to that effect, as alleged in particular 4(b) of the Notice of Hearing. The Panel relies on [XXX] testimony that he heard the Member tell Student 1, during the course of their verbal confrontation, to “shut the f up”. The Panel is satisfied that this uncontradicted evidence supports a finding of this allegation.

(c) Comment about Physical Assault - Particular 4(c)

28The Panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, on or about February 24, 2023, the Member made comments to Student 1, that he would: throw Student 1 against a window, or words to that effect (allegation 4(c)(ii)); smash Student 1’s head against a window, or words to that effect (allegation 4(c)(iii)); and/or hit Student 1 so hard that he would fall to the ground and would need help getting up or words to that effect (allegation 4(c)(iv)). However, the Panel finds that the College has not proven that the Member told Student 1 that he would slap him, or words to that effect (allegation 4(c)(i)).

29In making these findings, the Panel relies on [XXX] testimony that the Member told Student 1 something along the lines that he would “knock [Student 1’s] head through the window and they would have to scape him off the floor”. The Panel notes that [XXX] did not use the terms “smash Student 1’s head” or “throw Student 1 against a window” in his testimony. However, the Panel is satisfied that the Member’s statement that he would “knock” Student 1’s head against a window are words to the effect of a similar meaning to “smash” and “throw” within this context, as alleged in particulars 4(c)(ii) and 4(c)(iii). Similarly, the Panel also finds that the Member’s statement that “they will have to scrape him off the floor” are words to the effect of a similar meaning to “hit Student 1 so hard that he would fall to the ground and would need help getting up”, as alleged in particular 4(c)(iv). Based on [XXX] testimony which was uncontradicted, the Panel finds that the allegations outlined in particulars 4(c)(ii), (iii) and (iv) have been proven, on a balance of probabilities.

30The Panel, however, did not hear any evidence that the Member told Student 1 that he would slap him. [XXX] did not provide any evidence regarding such a statement. The Panel therefore finds that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Member made comments to Student 1 that he would slap Student 1, or words to that effect as alleged in particular 4(c)(i) of the Notice of Hearing.

(d) Comment about Jail - Particular 4(d)

31The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, on or about February 24, 2023, the Member told Student 1 that he should and/or would go to jail, or words to that effect, as alleged in particular 4(d). The Panel bases its finding on [XXX] testimony that he heard the Member say, “the teacher will still be teaching in the school and [the] student would go [to] jail”. The Panel accepts [XXX] evidence that this statement was directed to and was about Student 1. This evidence is uncontradicted and the Panel is satisfied that this particular has been established.

(e) Comments about Student 1’s Weight - Particular 4(e)

32The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, on or about February 24, 2023, the Member told Student 1 that he was fat, insinuating that he was overweight, and/or mocking his weight, or words to that effect, as alleged in particular 4(e) of the Notice of Hearing. The Panel accepts that [XXX] heard the Member tell Student 1 to pick up a mirror and look at himself. The Panel also accepts that [XXX] understood this comment to be about Student 1’s body, which in [XXX] view was “slightly overweight”. Based on [XXX] uncontradicted evidence, the Panel is satisfied the Member more likely than not made a comment to Student 1, during the verbal confrontation on February 24, 2023, in relation to Student 1’s appearance and mocked Student 1’s weight.

(f) Swearing - Particular 4(f)

33For the reasons described in allegation 4(b), the Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, on or about February 24, 2023, the Member swore at Student 1 and/or the class, as alleged in particular 4(f) of the Notice of Hearing. The Panel accepts [XXX] evidence that the Member told Student 1 during their verbal confrontation and in the presence of other students in the class, to “shut the f up”. [XXX] confirmed that the Member did not use the letter “f” but the actual “f” word (i.e. “fuck”). Based on this uncontradicted evidence, the Panel finds that the Member swore at Student 1, as alleged.

(g) Showing the Middle Finger – Particular 4(g)

34The Panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, on or about February 24, 2023, the Member showed his middle finger to Student 1 and/or the class, as alleged in particular 4(g) of the Notice of Hearing. The Panel notes that [XXX] could not recall whether the Member showed his middle finger to the class before or after closing his laptop. However, the Panel finds this to be a minor detail and finds that [XXX] testimony was otherwise credible and reliable. The Panel is satisfied that this particular has been established on a balance of probabilities.

(2) Legal Conclusions

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

35The Panel finds that the Member verbally abused a student or students during his verbal altercation with Student 1 on or around February 24, 2023. It is verbally abusive for teachers to make threatening, aggressive, demeaning and inappropriate comments to students (including the use of profanity). The Member abused his position of trust and authority and engaged in verbal abuse when he raised his voice during a verbal confrontation with Student 1 and told Student 1 to “shut the [fuck] up”, threatened to “knock [his] head against the window”, and belittled him in front of his peers by mocking his weight by telling him to look in the mirror.

(b) The Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2)

36The Panel finds that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally. The Panel accepts [XXX] testimony that the Member’s conduct made Student 1 upset and “taken aback”. As well, [XXX] who witnessed the verbal confrontation, testified that he feared the situation would escalate to physical violence. It is psychologically and emotionally abusive for a teacher to create an intimidating atmosphere in the classroom, such as by raising his voice, using profanity and threatening physical violence, where students are fearful that someone might get hurt. The Panel also finds it psychologically or emotionally abusive to mock a student for his body weight. By his conduct, the Member showed a complete disregard for his students’ well-being.

(c) The Member committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18)

37The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. It was unacceptable for the Member to use profanity towards a student, show his middle finger, and threaten physical violence. By his conduct, the Member demonstrated a complete disregard for students’ well-being and for his professional obligations. The Member demonstrated significant moral failings which cast doubt on his abilities to practice the profession in the best interests of students.

(d) The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)

38The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, as described above, is unbecoming a member of the teaching profession. Teachers are entrusted with the care of students and one of their fundamental responsibilities is to ensure students’ safety and well-being. Parents and the public also expect teachers to serve as positive role models for students. When members resort to engaging in threatening and offensive behaviour towards a student, it undermines the public’s trust and confidence in the teaching profession as a whole.

39The Panel will schedule a subsequent date on which to hear submissions with respect to penalty.