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
Cheryl Catherine Gould, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CHERYL CATHERINE GOULD (REGISTRATION #450388)
PANEL: Kirby Chown, OCT, Chair
Stefano Fornazzari, OCT
Kayla Stephenson
HEARD: March 5-6, April 22, May 13 and June 19, 2024
Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Philip Horgan, for Cheryl Catherine Gould
Rebecca Durcan, 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 March 5-6, 2024, April 22, 2024, May 13, 2024, and June 19, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”).
2Cheryl Catherine Gould (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 on facts and finding (“ASF and Guilty Plea”). The Panel considered two motions by the Member on March 5 and 6, 2024, prior to the hearing on the merits.
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. The Panel extended this publication ban to an individual whose photograph appears in Exhibits E and T of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 5). The individual’s age and identity are unknown, and the publication ban was extended to this individual out of an abundance of caution.
B. motion for discretionary publication ban and sealing order
4Member’s Counsel filed a Notice of Motion dated March 4, 2024 (Exhibit 2) seeking leave from the Panel to hear, on an expedited basis, a motion for: 1) an interim order that the evidence submitted in the disciplinary proceeding be subject to a publication ban, as provided under section 32.1 of the Act, pending the disposition of the liability stage of the proceedings; 2) an interim order that a sealing order be issued in respect of evidence submitted in the proceeding pending the disposition of the liability stage of the proceedings; 3) in the alternative, an interim order for a publication ban and/or sealing order of particular aspects of the evidence set out in the ASF and Guilty Plea; and 4) an order that, at the disposition stage of the proceeding, the parties are provided further opportunity to address the interim orders on a go-forward basis. College Counsel opposed this motion.
5Member’s Counsel submitted that the requested orders were necessary to avoid the possibility of someone taking the evidence set out in the ASF and Guilty Plea out of context and as a result avoiding any resulting unintended negative consequences to the Member. Specifically, Member’s Counsel noted that the ASF and Guilty Plea specifically linked the Member to the online posts in social media that were in question. Member’s Counsel raised concerns that in the current political climate the Member might face unintended consequences (which she had sought to avoid by the use of a pseudonym) if someone selectively reproduced the online posts referred to in the ASF and Guilty Plea without the full context. Member’s Counsel further submitted that since the requested orders would be interim, they would have a limited scope and would not unduly offend the open court principle.
6College Counsel opposed the motion on two grounds. First, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s motion was not brought in a timely manner. The Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) had been issued and served on the Member prior to the hearing and was available on the College’s website as of November 2022. College Counsel submitted the Member should have reasonably contemplated that the College would be entering into evidence copies of the social media posts referred to in the Notice of Hearing, and as a result could have brought her motion well in advance of the hearing.
7Second, College Counsel argued that the motion did not have merit. College Counsel submitted the Member has not identified what public interest was at risk nor provided evidence that she faced a serious risk of physical harm such that a sealing order would be appropriate, as required by Rule 13.16. College Counsel relied on the case of Ontario College of Teachers v. Imgrund, 2023 ONOCT 45 (“Imgrund”) which found that mere speculation as to harm is not a sufficient basis for a discretionary publication ban under section 32.1(1) of the Act.
8Finally, College Counsel submitted that if the motion was granted, it would have very limited value, because the Member’s posts were already public. College Counsel noted that the Member did not use her name on her Facebook account but rather used a pseudonym and identified herself as a teacher in the public Catholic school system.
9Independent Legal Counsel (“ILC”) provided advice to the Panel on the motion issues. She reminded the Panel that the only evidence tendered by Member’s Counsel in support of the motion was the ASF and Guilty Plea. ILC also referred the Panel to the requirements set out in the Rules regarding motions and sealing orders, and the requirements to order a discretionary publication ban pursuant to section 32.1(1) of the Act.
C. DECISION and reasons ON MOTION FOR discretionary PUBLICATION BAN AND SEALING ORDER
10Having considered the submissions of the parties and ILC’s advice, the Panel held that it was not appropriate to hear the Member’s motion on an expedited basis. Specifically, the Panel found it inappropriate in the circumstances to waive the notice and service requirements set out in the Rules.
11Given the Panel’s decision not to hear the Member’s motion, it was not necessary for the Panel to make a decision on the merits of the motion. Nevertheless, the Panel noted that if the Member’s motion had been heard, it would not have been successful. The Panel noted the Member did not provide sufficient evidence of either a serious risk to an important public interest or a serious risk of physical harm as a result of the publication of the evidence in the ASF and Guilty Plea. The Panel acknowledges that this hearing raises issues that are sensitive and can elicit strong responses. However, the Member has not provided specific evidence of possible harm—let alone serious harm—to her or to an important public interest which would warrant a sealing order, as required by Rule 13.16 of the Rules. The Panel also noted that it would require more than speculation to order a discretionary publication ban under section 32.1(1) of the Act, per Imgrund.
D. MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF PANEL MEMBER
12Member’s Counsel also filed a Notice of Motion dated March 5, 2024 (Exhibit 3) seeking leave from the Panel to hear, on an expedited basis, a motion for an order that Panel Member Ms. Stephenson recuse herself, on the grounds of bias, from the hearing in this proceeding. College Counsel opposed this motion.
13Member’s Counsel submitted that the test for assessing whether there is an apprehension of bias is whether a reasonable and right-minded person would conclude that the adjudicator would consciously or unconsciously decide unfairly. This approach should be considered from the Member’s perspective. Member’s Counsel noted that procedural fairness is essential in matters concerning serious issues, such as the ability to continue to earn a livelihood (Canadian College of Business and Computers Inc v. Ontario (Private Career Colleges), 2010 ONCA 856). Member’s Counsel indicated that the best approach is for adjudicators to recuse themselves if there is any air of reality to a bias claim (Beard Winter LLP v. Shekhdar, 2016 ONCA 493).
14The Member filed an affidavit in support of her motion for recusal (Exhibit 4). The affidavit included three posts from Ms. Stephenson’s X (formerly Twitter) account where she had: 1) reposted a post from the Federation of Asian-Canadian Lawyers (Ontario) linking their joint statement with the South Asian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association condemning the views of the FullStop campaign during the Law Society of Ontario’s 2023 Bencher election; 2) liked a post recognizing International Transgender Day of Visibility; and 3) liked a post by Black Lives Matter-Peel inviting people to join them at a meeting of Trustees for the Peel District School Board. Member’s Counsel submitted that these posts raised a reasonable apprehension or bias, or appearance of bias on the part of Ms. Stephenson because her posts publicly articulated her support for certain lawyer groups, gender ideology, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Member’s Counsel noted that some of these posts conflict with the Member’s personal views. Member’s Counsel advised the Panel that he was a member of the FullStop Bencher group at the Law Society of Ontario. He submitted that Ms. Stephenson’s repost of a joint statement opposing the FullStop campaign raised a reasonable apprehension of bias against not only the Member but Member’s Counsel.
15College Counsel strongly opposed the motion. College Counsel agreed with Member’s Counsel’s articulation of the test for finding a reasonable apprehension of bias. However, College Counsel stated that the test for determining an apprehension of bias includes the assumption that a reasonable person would be aware of the social reality that forms the background of the case, including the prevalence of racial or gender bias against a community (Law Society of Ontario v. Barnwell, 2021 ONLSTH 50). She submitted the threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias is a high one, requiring a real likelihood that the adjudicator’s identity and experiences have closed her mind to the evidence and issues before her (Yukon Francophone School Board v. Yukon (A.G.), 2015 SCC 25 (“Yukon”)). College Counsel submitted that mere association with an interest is an insufficient basis for recusal (A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 1057).
16College Counsel submitted that the Member had failed to show that a reasonable person would find that Ms. Stephenson would decide the matter unfairly. In particular, her act of reposting and liking the posts on social media does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias but rather demonstrates that Ms. Stephenson supports issues affecting her community. College Counsel submitted that it is important that discipline committee panels be representative of the teaching profession, and more broadly, of the people of this province. While Ms. Stephenson has made posts from third parties available to her followers, College Counsel noted importantly, she did not add any commentary in the posts nor express any personal views on the posts.
17With respect to the allegation of bias by Ms. Stephenson against Member’s Counsel, College Counsel argued that Member’s Counsel had failed to provide any evidence to support a finding not only that Ms. Stephenson was aware of Member’s Counsel’s participation in the FullStop Movement at the Law Society of Ontario but also that his involvement has any relevance to whether the Member has engaged in professional misconduct.
18ILC advised the Panel that in order to grant the Member’s motion, the Panel must be satisfied that the Member has provided cogent evidence that establishes a reasonable apprehension of bias. In order to grant this motion, the Panel must be satisfied that Member’s Counsel has established that a reasonable and informed person, apprised of the matter realistically and practically, would conclude on a balance of probabilities that it was more likely that Ms. Stephenson, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide the hearing in a fair manner. If the Panel is satisfied that the Member’s Counsel has established this, then Ms. Stephenson will be recused, and the matter will proceed with the two remaining Panel members. ILC reminded the Panel that there is a strong presumption of judicial impartiality in Canada, and it is not easily displaced (Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45 (“Wewaykum”)).
19Ms. Stephenson indicated that she was fully capable of hearing this matter impartially.
E. DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF PANEL MEMBER
20Having considered the parties’ submissions and ILC’s advice, the Panel dismissed the motion for recusal of Panel Member Ms. Stephenson. The Member failed to meet the high threshold test for recusal, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Yukon and Wewaykum. The Panel was not satisfied that a reasonable person informed of the facts would reasonably find that the posts made by Ms. Stephenson establish that she would not be able to adjudicate the Member’s case fairly.
21In the Panel’s view, the fact that Ms. Stephenson has shared and liked posts by certain organizations on social media arguably demonstrate that she is aware of issues affecting her profession, her community, and Canadian society. The record does not establish that Ms. Stephenson was a member of any of these organizations. Even if they did, the Panel nevertheless adopts the approach taken by the Supreme Court in the Yukon case that membership in an association affiliated with the interests of a particular race, nationality, religion or language is not, on its own, a basis for concluding that a perception of bias can reasonably be said to arise. The presumption of judicial impartiality is important and cannot be easily displaced. While there may be situations where such a motion is successful as the presumption of judicial impartiality is not immutable, the Member has failed to tender sufficient evidence to displace that presumption.
F. THE ALLEGATIONS
22The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated November 8, 2022 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Cheryl Catherine Gould 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);[1]
(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).
G. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
23College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ amended Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 5), which provides the following:
Cheryl Catherine Gould is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) with Inactive/Non-Practising status. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Member’s Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (the “Board”), as a Visual Arts and English teacher at the Midland Campus of Monsignor Fraser Alternative Learning Centre (the “School), in Scarborough, Ontario.
The School Environment and Student Population
The School provides an alternative educational program for students between the ages of 16 and 20, as well as continuing education for students aged 21 and over. It is designed to offer an alternative for vulnerable, high needs students who have difficulty functioning in, and meeting the expectations of, a traditional high school environment.
During the relevant time period, 87% of the student population, at the School campus where the Member taught, were of a visible minority, with the highest proportion being Black students. A large number of students were new immigrants to Canada, with many having experienced trauma because of their race, religion and/or sexual orientation.
The School also had students who identified as transgender, with two to three students being in the process of transitioning each year.
Although the School is part of the Catholic school board, it is not a requirement that students are Catholic. In fact, a significant percentage of the students were Muslim, some having attended the School directly from a private Islamic school. There were students who wore hijabs.
Most of the School’s students were vulnerable, at-risk students from marginalized communities. Some were living in shelters, others were involved in gangs and/or experienced violence in their country of origin or in family settings, and many experienced mental health challenges.
Unlike students attending mainstream schools, many of them lacked parental support or involvement in their schooling as a result of their unique circumstances. This included students who were in foster care, experiencing significant poverty, had non-English-speaking parents, had parents working multiple jobs including night shifts.
For many of the School’s students, they had fallen through the cracks in the educational system, in the child welfare system, and/or in the immigration system. It was hoped that the School staff would provide an environment that would help restore their trust in the educational system, support and advocate for them. In at least one instance, the Member had been acknowledged for her support of a struggling student who was a member of a marginalized group.
The School and the Board’s Mission and Objectives
A key priority for the Toronto Catholic District School Board, at the relevant time, was to foster a learning environment that was equitable, inclusive and respectful of all members of the school community. Moreover, the Board’s policies explicitly recognized that discrimination, on any recognized ground, was incompatible with Catholic moral principles. In a school like Monsignor Fraser, and in particular its Midland campus, these principles were especially important given the diversity of its student population. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibits “B” and “C” respectively is a copy of the Board’s Catholic Equity and Inclusive Education Policy H.M.24 and of the School’s Mission Statement.
In order to better serve their diverse School population, the Board organized professional development programming and provided resources to the staff to increase their understanding of diversity, equity and inclusion issues and the implicit biases they may have.
The School also introduced a community organization called “Stolen from Africa”. They had an office in the building where they met with students and looked at issues through an Afrocentric lens. This was well received by students and created a space where they felt safe.
The Member’s Facebook Account
Throughout 2020 and 2021, the Member maintained a personal Facebook account under the name “Harvey C Catherine”. The Member did not use her married name (Cheryl C. Harvey) in any context, at work or otherwise. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a collection of the Member’s Facebook posts between February 25, 2020, and April 19, 2021.
The Member identified herself on her Facebook account and in her posts, as a teacher working in the publicly funded Catholic school system; as an English, art and media teacher; and as a teacher of at-risk youth. The Member did not identify the specific school, nor the School Board, where she taught. Over the thousands of pages of posts made by the Member, she only occasionally referred to her status as a teacher. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the posts in which she identifies herself in this manner.
On August 27, 2020, the Member posted a new home page biography on her “Harvey C Catherine” Facebook account, which had a photograph of herself and the caption “hateful, pathetic, xenophobic, transphobic, far-right, racist that better people feel sorry for.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the Member’s posted biography.
The Member’s posted biography, as with many other posts on this account, was intended by her to be ironic, satirical, and self-deprecating in nature.
The Member occasionally posted photographs of herself on her Harvey C Catherine Facebook account. For example, on March 26, 2021, the Member updated her profile page by adding a new photograph of herself. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “G” is a copy of the Member’s updated photo on March 26, 2021.
The content on the Member’s account was visible to her Facebook “friends” (i.e. individuals to whom she had granted access), who numbered approximately 2300 at the time. However, the Member also changed her settings on occasion to allow public access to her posts, including when asked by her followers to do so. For example, when one of the Member’s Facebook “friends” asked her to make one of her posts “shareable”, the Member indicated that she had assumed her settings defaulted to the public, and changed the settings to allow sharing of that post. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “H” is the exchange discussing public access to the Member’s content.
The Member’s Facebook Posts
On November 4, 2020, the Member shared a screenshot on her Facebook account of a work email she received from her Vice Principal with the tag line below his altered name reading “BLACK LIVES MATTER” with, as the Member noted, “names changed to protect the innocent (me)”, and an email from her teacher’s union announcing a meeting for black teachers only. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I” is a copy of the work emails shared by the Member.
The Member shared this email because she objected to a racially segregated meeting being held as she viewed it as racist and morally wrong.
When the Member was asked by one of her followers if she would attend her union’s meeting for black teachers only, wearing blackface, the Member responded by posting a photograph of a white person wearing blackface walking through a crowd, with a speech bubble saying, “Hello, Fellow Black People”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I” is a copy of the photo shared by the Member.
The Member intended this post as a humorous response to an inquiry with two separate cultural references, one visual, one by the words used. Specifically, the post refers to:
(a) a meme, originating from the television show “30 Rock”, showing an older actor dressed as a teenager, with the caption, “How do you do, fellow kids?”; and
(b) the source of the image used by the Member, namely an incident in which an attendee at a Black Lives Matter protest was photographed wearing blackface.
This same post prompted another of the Member’s followers to ask why there was a meeting for black teachers only and no white only spaces, to which the Member agreed that she was also wondering why there were no spaces for Asians given that, “Yellow people’s victimization by whites surely means their lives matter, no? Yellow Lives Matter!”
The Member intentionally used language some would find offensive as a satirical comment on the racially segregated meeting, because the Member found the limitation of meetings based on skin colour to be offensive in itself.
On or about October 16, 2020, the Member had an online Facebook exchange with an individual about a teacher in France, Samuel Paty. He had apparently taught his class about freedom of expression by showing cartoon images, which offended Muslims, of the Prophet Muhammed. He was subsequently beheaded by an Islamic terrorist.
The Member and this individual disagreed in their views on the Samuel Paty incident. The Member then posted a screen capture of their exchange in which the individual, whose name and profile picture are visible, called her an “uneducated Karen”, in response to which she called him an “inbred Ahmed” and posted the comment, “I don’t engage much with the enemy any more, bc [sic] when I do, it always ends something like this.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “J” is a copy of the October 16, 2020, post.
These posts arose on October 16, 2020, and in the context of the murder of a fellow teacher for offending Muslim sensibilities.
On October 29, 2020, the Member shared an online news item from Reuters headlined “Three dead as woman beheaded in knife attack at French church.” The link was to coverage of an incident on October 29, 2020, in which a Tunisian man shouting “Allahu Akbar” used a knife to behead a woman and kill two other people in a church in the French city of Nice.
The Member added the caption: “[Islam’s] a sick death cult that should not be permitted to thrive in nonMuslim [sic] nations, as it inevitably creates traitors and is a public safety threat. It’s an enemy ideology that randomly weaponizes adherents, turning everyday Muslims into dangerous enemies of state who are willing to martyr themselves for the cause while murdering total strangers.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “K” is a copy of the October 29, 2020, post.
The Member’s post was in reaction to another violent attack within days of the Samuel Paty murder.
On or about October 29, 2020, the Member shared a screenshot of a post by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, a former Prime Minister of Malaysia, commenting on the October 29, 2020, Nice attack described in the article shared by the Member. Dr. Mohamad’s post read: “Muslims have a right to be angry and kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.”
In response, the Member wrote a post on her Facebook account stating, “Surely westerners have a right to force Islam out the door. It needs to be ejected and isolated. Some Muslims are fabulous human beings, but as practiced most everywhere it is popular today, it is a shamefully backward religion….Islamic fundamentalists (which is most Muslims, at least on surface, professedly, as fundamentalism is a core tenet of the faith) are always religious and political supremacists, as that is how the religion was structured by its founder….As long as Islam remains dogmatically fundamentalist, it is an unsuitable belief system in western contexts, and a threat to our freedom and security”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “L” is a copy of the October 29, 2020, post.
The Member’s post was in reaction to a prominent Muslim leader’s statement in the aftermath of the Nice attack.
In response to the above post, a follower asked “Why do you keep qualifying Islam and Muslims with the redundant terms “fundamentalism” and “fundamentalist”? The Member responded, “because I wouldn’t condemn certain sects and individuals within the Islamist world…I am for maximum personal liberty and minimal state interference in personal beliefs.”
On or about November 2, 2020, the Member shared an online news article from the BBC covering an incident from that day, in which a heavily armed Islamist terrorist killed four people and wounded 23 others in a shooting in Vienna.
The Member posted the caption: “Many shot today in Vienna, and many more Islamists will slaughter many more innocent Westerners in the months ahead. Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Islamists live in Europe now. So, Europe is bleeding. The continent has been invaded and is under attack by Islamists. They are rabid and famished for conquest…Immigration from many nations must stop, and Islamists and their families living in Europe must be expelled or imprisoned as enemies of the state. Entire families must be expelled if they will not denounce their Islamist members.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “M” is a copy of the November 2, 2020, post.
The Member’s comments were a reaction to Islamic terrorism in Europe, and were made on the day the attack occurred.
On or about November 18, 2020, the Member shared an image, for which she added a heart emoji, from a Charlie Hebdo cartoon, which gives drawing instructions starting with a penis and completing the image with the Prophet Muhammad. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “N” is a copy of the November 18, 2020, post.
The Member made this post to express solidarity with cartoonists who had been killed or subjected to death threats for posting images of the Prophet Muhammad, or otherwise considered offensive by some Muslims, including the victims of the “Charlie Hebdo” shootings in 2015, in which Islamic terrorists killed 12 people and wounded 11 for their publication of such cartoons.
On or about November 26, 2020, the Member shared the following post, adding her own comment, “Progress!” along with 6 laughing face emojis: “’Chinese’ doesn’t really invoke the incredible ethnic diversity of China (Han, Uighurs, Tibetans, Mongols, Manchu, etc.) so I use the term “Chinx” instead.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “O” is a copy of the November 26, 2020, post.
The Member intended her post to be a satirical mockery of the newly adopted term “Latinx” as a gender neutral way to refer to Latin American people, as a replacement for the Spanish words “Latina” and “Latino”.
On or about November 28, 2020, the Member posted the caption “LOL” along with a cartoon image depicting a person with brown skin, a machete, and head dress holding and raising in celebration the arm of a white male with glasses and a beard. The white male is decapitated and his head hovers over his body. The text in the picture reads “Celebrate Diversity”. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “P” is a copy of the November 28, 2020, post.
On or about March 27, 2021, the Member posted an image of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb with a lit fuse on his head instead of a turban, and commented, “Absurd that such images of Muhammad should be disallowed in western schools. Our leaders are passive and weak and bowing to our civilizational and cultural enemies when the enemies demand (backed by precedents of murder and of other violence) that we change our culture to become more like theirs…in one of the worst possible ways. I remember the days when we had freedom of conscience and speech. Anyone else remember those days?” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “Q” is a copy of the March 27, 2021, post.
In response to a comment by one of her followers that the cartoon was offensive, the Member stated “you are right, but the cartoon is supposed to be offensive. it [sic] was designed to offend Islamic sensibilities.”
The Member’s post expressed her view that criticism of Islamic politics and culture, including the use of cartoons which may be deemed offensive, should not be censored. This cartoon first appeared in 2005 in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The Member’s comments stated that the image was “cutting but apt satire and social commentary”. She asserted that such censorship is contrary to authentic pluralism, where differing views and beliefs share space in the public square.
The Member advised her Facebook friends that she was trying to wean off the platform as she had received a warning on her Facebook account. A warning by Facebook administrators indicates that the account holder is deemed to have violated community standards. No reference was provided as to what was the subject of a complaint. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “R” is a copy of the Member’s statement about a warning.
The Member’s Posts Addressing Transgender Issues
- On October 8, 2020, the Member posted that “transactivism is sinking to new levels of public depravity”. Her post included several images, including:
(a) a screenshot of a May 11, 2020, article from The Times, titled “Seven sex attacks in women’s jails by transgender convicts”, and with the words visible: “Transgender prisoners are five times more likely to carry out sex attacks on inmates at women’s jails than other prisoners are”; and
(b) a screenshot of an article titled “Transgender MMA Fighter Fallon Fox Breaks Opponent’s Skull”.
In response to a comment her post received, the Member stated, “Affirmation of trans identity and transitioning is often not the support they need” and “I work with at-risk youth individuals daily. Trans kids tend to like me. If they only knew…” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “S” is a copy of the October 8, 2020, post.
On or about February 8, 2021, the Member shared a social media post including an image of a person about to undergo gender reassignment surgery. The person had commented, “Going into surgery to get my vajayjay”. Another social media user had added a comment which is not visible in full, but includes the phrase “informed that hair will never stop growing inside, and it’ll smell like rotten carrion”.
The Member posted the following comments in response:
(a) “I can’t even. Sorry, folks, maybe it’s too gross to share…? But when will this tr [sic] madness end? And very importantly, WHY are we ENABLING these abusive medical practices and celebrating human illness, self-mutilation, and depravity?”; and
(b) “Medical professionals have ethical duties and most of these people are mentally ill. I teach at-risk youth and at legal age (18 in Canada), many are still unable to think straight or properly care for themselves. They’ve been parented just that badly. It’s awful.”
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “T” is a copy of the February 8, 2021, post.
- On or about February 25, 2021, in the context of the Member’s previous posts about transgender individuals and their choice to have gender reassignment surgery, the Member posted an image of a Mrs. Potato Head doll where a penis and lipstick were added by hand and commented, “New PotatoHead [sic] Ma’am coming later this year. Designers are busy working on the prototypes for new detachable bits.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “U” is a copy of the February 8, 2021, post.
Providing a Forum for Offensive Commentary
The Member’s posts attracted followers who made racist and transphobic comments and shared offensive posts. Although the Member had the ability to delete comments made by others on her account, she chose not to, as she did not believe in censoring or “controlling people’s thoughts”.
The Member observed that her posts generated a lot of discussion, but stated that she did not have time to monitor the comments. Other than anti-Semitic or misogynist content, the Member acknowledged that she hardly removed anything from her page, but would do so if she felt there was something she did not want in her space.
In response to a Black Lives Matter post by the Member on January 10, 2021, one of her followers posted an image of a clenched black fist holding a banana with the caption “Black Lives Matter”. During her interview with the Board, the Member acknowledged that this image was racist. Another follower posted an image of a black fist holding a rainbow-coloured penis in its grip. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “V” is a copy of the January 10, 2021, post and comments.
One of the Member’s followers posted a cartoon meme showing George Floyd’s “white” spirit exiting his body with Officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on his neck and the caption, “Holy Shit I’m Finally White” and “You are welcome”. Another individual posted a cartoon meme of a fentanyl needle on George Floyd’s neck with the caption, “I can’t breathe!” The Member did not remove this content from her personal account. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “W” is a copy of the commentary on the Member’s Facebook page.
In response to the Member’s public post of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed wearing a lit bomb as a turban, one of the Member’s followers posted in the comments, “[Muslims] can go INSIDE their mosques and stick their arses in the air to their hearts’ content. Preferably their mosques will be relocated from the West BACK to the ethno-cultural-linguistic-religious-spiritual homelands of their origins/heritage.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “Q” is a copy of the commentary on the Member’s Facebook page.
In addition to being offended by the Member’s posts, a number of her colleagues at the School were particularly upset by the racist and degrading nature of the opinions expressed by the Member’s followers and were shocked that the Member allowed her personal account to become a platform for such commentary.
The Member did not believe it was her responsibility to remove what other people posted in a public forum even though she had the means to do so.
Impact on School Community
No student or parent of the Board made a complaint about the Member’s Harvey C Catherine account, nor were there formal complaints to the School administration about what the Member was teaching students in her classes.
The Member taught English and Art, subjects where the curriculum covered by the teacher can be quite subjective. The Member acknowledged that she taught her students about Islam and free speech.
In one of the Member’s private Facebook posts, on March 31, 2021, she expressed her revulsion at news of a teacher in England receiving death threats and having to go into hiding after sharing with his students the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed by French magazine Charlie Hebdo. The Member told her Facebook friends: “Like Paty and this teacher did, I also teach students about freedom of conscience and expression, western traditions of satire, and the serious conflicts between Islamic prohibitions and western freedoms.” [emphasis added] The Member did not show the actual controversial images to her class. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “X”, is a copy of the Member’s March 31, 2021, post.
The Member also studied with her class a graphic novel that was an autobiographical account of living through the Iranian revolution. She made recourse to certain articles and essays about freedom of expression conflicts including one about a painting in a gallery in England that was censored as a result of Muslim complaints.
The Member shared a New York Post article about “white fragility” with a caption stating, “I will use it with my students [heart emoji]” indicating that she had the freedom to select the material she used as part of her teaching curriculum. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “Y” is a copy of the Member’s February 23, 2021, post.
It is unknown what the Member said to her students with respect to these issues. The absence of formal complaints by students or parents is not evidence that the Member did not make inappropriate comments in the learning environment, or allow her personal views to permeate the content she taught in the classroom.
Member’s Statements at Union Meeting
On April 9, 2021, a union meeting was held to discuss next steps around COVID protocols, return to in-person teaching and the next quadmester. The meeting was attended by over sixty of the School’s staff, following a regular staff meeting.
Believing that what she said in a union meeting would be private, the Member expressed her distrust that the Director of Education had opined on vaccines as “safe and effective”. She expressed her fears that failing to take such vaccines could lead to loss of jobs.
The Member strongly objected to the Board having provided staff with a book called, So You Want to Talk About Race?, which she described as “horrific”, “anti-white”, with an expressed hatred for western civilization, and as an attempt to “indoctrinate” staff. The Member believed that she could not raise these issues with the Union President or her Vice Principal as they both used a BLM logo on their email signature.
The Member spoke on these topics with a sense of urgency and distress that caused other staff in the meeting to have concerns about her mental well-being. Some colleagues turned off their cameras, others left the meeting. Everyone was silent. After the Member’s commentary, the meeting was ended.
Immediately after, and even during the meeting, colleagues began texting one another to express their disbelief at what the Member was saying. Calls were made to their union representative, the School’s Equity Lead and the school administrators to complain and express how upset they were.
The Member’s comments prompted a colleague, who knew of the Member’s Facebook page, to make it known to others.
This led to numerous conversations among the staff about the Member’s posts, which they viewed as anti-Islamic, racist and transphobic. They were sickened by the scope of it, the imagery and the language used by the Member.
In reporting their concerns to the School administration, teachers expressed the offence they took at the Member’s comments which they felt discredited the School and Catholic education. They were concerned that the Member presented a danger to the School’s student population whose race, religion and/or sexual identity were targeted in the Member’s posts. They also worried about the well-being of their racialized colleagues.
Her colleagues indicated that they would have difficulty working with the Member given her expressed beliefs.
A Black teacher at the School noted that she had enjoyed the supportive, inclusive ethos of the School which felt to her like a safe space, free of overt racism. The Member’s “rant” at the meeting and her social media posts, “shattered” that for her. Her sense of unease was made worse by the Member’s indication that she had spoken to other colleagues at the School who shared her beliefs.
The School celebrated diversity. The Vice Principal described it as “abhorrent” to see the Member’s cartoon post of a Muslim person decapitating a white person with the Member’s added caption, “Celebrate Diversity”.
After viewing the Member’s posts on her Facebook account, the School guidance counsellor stated that she no longer felt comfortable placing students in the Member’s class.
The School’s Chaplain and Equity Lead spoke to the Principal about how the Member’s, now publicly known and expressed, views had the potential to create a toxic school environment and undermined the strides they had made in creating a safe space for discussions about diversity, equity and inclusion.
The Member has acknowledged that some of her Muslim students would be offended by the content on her Facebook account.
A handful of teachers, including the one who shared the Facebook account with colleagues after the union meeting, had been Facebook friends with her for several years. She never received a comment from them objecting to her social media posts, nor a communication that there was concern about her social media activity.
Board Investigation
As a result of the reports made to the School administration, the Board hired an external technology firm to obtain forensic images of the Member’s public and private Facebook accounts.
The Board investigator interviewed members of the School’s administration team, the School guidance counsellor, and the Equity Lead/Chaplain, who received reports from other staff about the Member’s activities. The investigator also reviewed the Member’s Facebook account and interviewed the Member about its contents.
On May 27, 2021, the Board investigator submitted his report to the Board advising that certain allegations were substantiated. As a result of the investigation findings, effective September 1, 2021, the Board terminated the Member’s employment. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibits “Z” and “AA” respectively, are copies of the portion of the Board Investigation Report dated May 27, 2021, summarizing the investigator’s interview with the Member and the Board’s termination letter dated June 30, 2021.
The Member is currently grieving her termination.
The Ontario College of Teachers issued a Professional Advisory regarding social media, which advises members to teach students appropriate online behaviour and the proper use of comments and images. Members are reminded that they must maintain professionalism even in their personal lives. They are specifically cautioned not to incite others to make discriminatory or other professionally unacceptable comments, nor to post or forward content, links or comments that might be considered offensive, discriminatory or inconsistent with professional or ethical standards.” Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “BB” is a copy of the College’s Professional Advisory on the Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media updated on September 27, 2017.
The Member is currently not active as a teacher, but remains a member of the College.
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(15), 1(18) 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.
H. DECISION ON FINDING
24Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (a) of the Notice of Hearing; namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation was sought as a result of pre-hearing negotiations that resulted in the ASF and Guilty Plea. The Panel granted the request.
25Having considered the ASF and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on April 22, 2024, finding the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
I. REASONS FOR DECISION ON FINDING
26By entering into an ASF and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 5), the Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 85 of this document and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She acknowledged, and the Panel finds, that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above. In the ASF and Guilty Plea, the admitted facts demonstrate that the Member made numerous comments on her social media accounts that were inappropriate, unprofessional, disrespectful, and offensive and provided a forum for others to agree or post their own opinions.
(a) The Member 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).
27The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to subsection 1(15) of the Ontario Regulation 437/97. Subsection 264(1)(c) states that teachers have a duty “to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion… and the highest regard for justice,…humanity, benevolence,…temperance and all other virtues”. Section 264(1)(c) is commonly understood to mean that teachers must conduct themselves as positive role models for students. This duty extends to the Member’s conduct outside of school.
28The Panel notes that, by signing the ASF and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 5), the Member had already admitted that her postings amounted to professional misconduct. However, through her counsel, during the hearing she appeared to resile from this agreement and instead advanced an alternate position; namely, that her posts promoted truth and freedom and that some of them were intended to be ironic and satirical. In several of her posts, the Member referred to her right to exercise her right to freedom of speech. The Panel considers the recent Divisional Court case Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685 (“Peterson”) where the Court held that when an individual is a member of a regulated profession, he or she is required to abide by the rules of that profession which may impinge on that individual’s right to freedom of speech (at para. 1).
29In the present case, the Member was a member of a regulated profession, which by statute required her to demonstrate the highest regard for moral virtues in her actions, including when posting her personal views on social media. Her right to freedom of speech on her social media was therefore limited by her professional obligations as a member of a regulated profession. The Panel notes that the Peterson case confirms this finding (at para. 1).
30The Panel finds the Member failed to uphold her obligations under section 264(1)(c) when she posted offensive images and comments on social media and also allowed others to make hateful comments in response. The Member failed to act as a good role model. The Member’s numerous comments and upwards of 2000 posts were discriminatory, rude, racist, and offensive. Some examples of this include her calling someone, “inbred Ahmed”; and referring to Islam as an “enemy ideology”; a “sick death cult” and a “shamefully backward religion.”
31Additionally, the Member’s admitted misconduct did not comply with subsection 264(1)(d) of the Education Act, which requires teachers to assist in developing co-operation and co-ordination of effort among the members of the staff of the school. Both the Board and the School had public statements outlining their commitment to embracing diversity (Exhibits B and C of Exhibit 5). The Member’s posts and comments on social media expressed views that are opposed to these efforts and can be seen as undermining the School’s efforts to meet these objectives.
32The Panel finds there was ample evidence that the Member’s conduct had a detrimental impact on her relationships with her colleagues and on the school community. According to paragraphs 65-79 of the ASF and Guilty Plea, at the union meeting at the School, the Member’s Facebook page became known to some staff. Her colleagues who viewed the Member’s posts, saw them as anti-Islamic, racist, and transphobic. They were sickened by the scope and focus of her posts, and by the imagery and language used by the Member. After reviewing the Member’s posts, her colleagues indicated they would have difficulty working with her going forward and were concerned that she presented a danger to the School’s student population, whose race, religion and/or sexual identity were targeted in the Member’s posts. Most significantly, the School’s guidance counsellor stated that she no longer felt comfortable placing students in the Member’s class.
33The Panel does not place much weight on the fact that some of the School’s staff had been Facebook friends with the Member for several years without complaint. Nor does the Panel find it significant that there were no complaints about the Member by students or parents. Silence by some is not evidence of approval or justification of the appropriateness of the Member’s conduct. As set out in the ASF and Guilty Plea, it is clear that the Member’s conduct had an adverse impact on her relationship with many of her colleagues and the school community.
(b) 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).
34The Panel also finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all of the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). The terms “disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional” are not legislatively defined, but are understood to be disjunctive and in a decreasing level of seriousness. Disgraceful conduct is characterized as reprehensible and the most egregious. It is conduct that casts serious doubt on a member’s moral fitness and ability to uphold their duties and responsibilities as a member of the profession. Dishonourable conduct also implies an element of a moral failing but is less serious than disgraceful conduct. Conduct characterized as unprofessional does not indicate a moral failing, but rather, involves acts that display poor professional judgment. The Panel finds that the Member’s conduct meets all three terms.
35The Member showed a lack of moral and professional judgment when she disseminated disrespectful and offensive comments through her social media posts. By her conduct, the Member clearly ignored not only requirements imposed on teachers by statute but also the expectations regarding teachers’ use of social media that are set out by their regulatory body, the College of Teachers in its Professional Advisory Maintaining Professionalism - Use of the Electronic Communication and Social Media (Exhibit BB of Exhibit 5) approved by Council on September 27, 2017. Teachers understand such advisories set out their obligations as members of the teaching profession. This advisory specifically states that “posting or forwarding content, links or comments that might be considered offensive, discriminatory, or inconsistent with professional or ethical standards” is an example of inappropriate electronic communications.
36In addition to her own offensive posts, the Member did not remove inappropriate content that was posted in response to her posts. The Professional Advisory Maintaining Professionalism - Use of the Electronic Communication and Social Media also states that members should “[e]nsure that [their] comments do not incite others to make discriminatory or other professional unacceptable comments” and to “monitor regularly all content [they] or others post to [the member’s] social media accounts and [to] remove anything that is inappropriate”.
37Here, however, the Member facilitated the widespread promulgation of offensive content by other social media users by failing to moderate the discussions on her posts. While she may have removed some posts, she did not remove all posts. According to the Member, she did not believe in censorship and did not have time to monitor all discussions on her posts. The Panel notes that while her Facebook account was generally visible only to “friends,” she had approximately 2300 “friends” at the time the posts were made. The Panel also notes that, however, she occasionally made her posts public and therefore shareable by others for reposting. While the Member also admits to having removed content that she did not want in her online space, such as anti-Semitic or misogynist content, the Panel finds this selective screening is indicative of an intentionality in the Member’s actions that puts the Member’s misconduct on the highest level of seriousness, such that the Member’s conduct can be properly characterized by all three terms.
(c) The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
38The Panel finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). Conduct unbecoming a member includes “off duty” conduct that undermines the reputation of the teaching profession. The Member’s misconduct in expressing her personal views in a disrespectful and offensive manner on her personal social media accounts, while openly stating that she is a teacher in the Ontario school system, not only affected her work colleagues, but also undermined the public’s confidence and trust in the profession as a whole.
J. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
39College Counsel submitted that the appropriate penalty in this matter is a reprimand and immediate revocation of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration (“Certificate”). College Counsel also provided the Panel with the following cases in support of its proposed penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v. Chrisopoulos, 2022 ONOCT 101 (“Chrisopoulos”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Frederick, 2006 ONOCT 17 (“Frederick”); College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Trozzi, 2024 ONPSDT 2; Ontario College of Teachers v. Kaprusiak, 2022 ONOCT 72 (“Kaprusiak”); Schwartz v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 3313; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Bowles, 2021 ONOCT 135.
40College Counsel reviewed the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case and made submissions as to why a suspension is not an appropriate sanction. College Counsel submitted that there are 12 aggravating factors, including the nature, scope, and intentionality of the Member’s posts, and the harm caused by the Member to the School’s community. College Counsel noted that a guilty plea is often considered a mitigating factor, as it is typically taken as an indication of remorse by a member. However, there is no evidence that the Member has shown any insight into or any regret about her misconduct. College Counsel tendered evidence to show that the Member continued to engage in similar misconduct after the Board’s investigation of her social media posts (Exhibit 6). College Counsel submitted that these articles and posts demonstrate that the Member is ungovernable, and support an order for revocation, rather than suspension, to achieve specific deterrence and rehabilitation of the Member.
41College Counsel reviewed various other reasons why a revocation was appropriate in the circumstances. Among other things, College Counsel submitted that a suspension would not meet the principles of general deterrence, and the preservation of public confidence. College Counsel referred the Panel to Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 825 to highlight the important role that teachers have in transmitting the values, beliefs, and ideologies of their community to the next generation. College Counsel submitted that the comments and posts espoused values that were harmful and that a revocation will inform the profession and the public of the seriousness of the Member’s misconduct.
K. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER
42The Member’s Counsel submitted that the appropriate penalty in this case would be a reprimand and coursework on the topic of human rights. Member’s Counsel provided the Panel with six cases involving similar conduct by members of the teaching profession who had allegations relating to social media where the teacher’s conduct did not result in revocation: Ontario College of Teachers v. Sadaka, 2019 ONOCT 60; Ontario College of Teachers v. McDonald, 2019 CanLII 145136 (ON OCT); Ontario College of Teachers v. Clark, 2021 ONOCT 4, 2021 ONOCT 04; Ontario College of Teachers v Flitton, 2021 ONOCT 25; Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), 2021 SCC 43; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Schmoll, 2024 ONOCT 5, 2024 ONOCT 05.
43In terms of mitigating factors, Member’s Counsel submitted that the Panel should consider the fact that the Member admitted her misconduct. In response to the College’s submissions as to aggravating factors, Member’s Counsel submitted that there needs to be room for dissenting views in any regulated profession. More specifically, Member’s Counsel argued that the Member’s conduct was, on occasion, satirical and self-deprecating and qualified her posts on social media as political commentary. Member’s Counsel also highlighted that the Member’s conduct did not take place in the classroom directly with students.
44Member’s Counsel strongly opposed revocation as it is the most extreme penalty that can be imposed by the Panel for the most egregious conduct by members. Member’s Counsel opposed a suspension as the Member has been suspended from her Board without a salary since September 2021. Member’s Counsel also submitted that the Member will no longer be able to grieve her dismissal with the Board if the Member’s Certificate is revoked.
L. Reply submissions of college counsel
45In reply, College Counsel submitted that the Member’s posts went beyond education or respectful banter on political discourse; they were extreme and clearly not respectful. College Counsel also submitted that it would not be appropriate for the Panel to consider the Member’s grievance of her termination and the fact that she has been without an income since September 2021 as mitigating factors, as this disciplinary proceeding is separate and distinct from the Member’s grievance.
M. PENALTY DECISION
46On June 19, 2024, the Panel made the following order as to penalty:
- The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to immediately revoke the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member.
N. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
47In arriving at its decision with respect to the penalty, the Panel considered the submissions of the parties regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors in the Member's case. The Panel also considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided by the parties, as well as the guiding principles underlying penalty orders, including specific and general deterrence, public protection, confidence in the College and proportionality.
(1) Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
48Although the Member admitted her misconduct, the Panel does not find this to be a mitigating factor in this instance because there is no evidence to suggest that the Member has expressed remorse or has had any insight or awareness of the impact of her misconduct on the school community. The sole mitigating factor in the Member’s case is that she had not been subject to the College’s discipline proceedings in the past.
49On the other hand, the Panel finds that there are numerous aggravating factors in the Member’s case. The Member’s posts were highly offensive and used hate-based language. The Member used extreme and vicious language and made references to insulting cartoons. The Member was also persistent and prolific in her misconduct, and made upwards of 2000 offensive posts over several years. In addition to the nature and number of her posts, the Panel also found that the widespread scope of her discrimination, which targeted Asians, Blacks, Muslims, and transgendered individuals, amongst other groups, to be an aggravating factor. The Panel finds this particularly aggravating given that the Member taught at a School where the majority of the students were vulnerable individuals from the very groups that the Member vilified online.
50The Panel also finds it an aggravating factor that although the Member used a pseudonym of her social media account, she did identify herself publicly on Facebook as a teacher in the Catholic school system in Ontario. As well, the Panel notes that the majority of the Member’s posts were original content representing her thoughts and opinions on matters and posted an email from her School administration on her public Facebook account (although she changed the names listed in the email), which made her identifiable. The Panel also found as an aggravating factor that her misconduct caused harm to her school community (e.g., the School’s guidance counsellor expressed that she did not feel comfortable placing students in her class anymore).
51The Panel further finds aggravating factors to include that the Member knowingly and deliberately acted contrary to her professional obligations (Tab 2 of Exhibit 6); that she deliberately chose to express her views publicly to a wide audience, rather than making her Facebook account private; and that she created an uncensored forum for offensive commentary by her followers.
52Finally, the Panel notes the Member refused to stop engaging in the type of alleged conduct not only after the Board brought concerns to her attention and put her on home assignment for further investigation, but also even after the referral to the Discipline Committee (Exhibit 6). This conduct is an aggravating factor. Such conduct demonstrates a lack of remorse or insight into the harm caused as a result of her ongoing activity.
(2) Case law
53The Panel reviewed the cases provided by the parties and relied on the Frederick and Kaprusiak decisions, as they found these two cases were the most similar to the Member’s case.
54In Frederick, the member was found to be publicly espousing racist ideology and attending public meetings or rallies where racist and anti-multicultural views were expressed and where he himself would speak using racist language. In that case, the Discipline Committee ordered a revocation of the member’s certificate, holding that anything short of a revocation would undermine public confidence in the profession’s ability to govern its members.
55In Kaprusiak, the member posted pictures and videos of members of the public on social media without their knowledge or consent. The member also posted derogatory, offensive and disparaging statements, comments and characterizations about individuals or groups of individuals, at times based on their race and ethnicity. The Discipline Committee noted his lack of insight and considered the member’s ungovernability and ordered the revocation of the member’s certificate.
56Given the severity of the Member’s misconduct, the harm caused to the school community, and the fact that the Member has not ceased her misconduct even after the Board investigation and the referral to the Discipline Committee, the Panel finds the Member’s misconduct is similar to the conduct in Frederick and Kaprusiak and warrants a similar penalty (i.e., revocation).
(3) Specific and General Deterrence
57Additionally, while the Member admitted to engaging in professional misconduct, the Member (like the members in Frederick and Kaprusiak) has not shown any remorse for her actions, or insight and appreciation of the gravity and impact of her misconduct. The Panel has reviewed Exhibit 6 and finds that this demonstrates to the Panel that the Member is not likely to benefit from a remedial order such as suspension or coursework. Rather, the Panel finds that revocation is the only remedy that will be a specific deterrent for the Member.
58Revocation will also serve as a general deterrent for the teaching profession. The Panel agrees with the Discipline Committee’s view in Chrisopoulos that societal views regarding racism and discriminatory conduct have changed over time and that increased attention is now being paid to such behaviour, such that there is a need for greater denunciation for such misconduct. Publicly posting offensive and discriminatory comments and facilitating a forum for hate is inconsistent with the Member’s duties as a teacher and the values on which the education system in Ontario is based. A revocation order will signal to the profession and the public that the College takes misconduct of this nature seriously. It will further signal to the profession that members cannot espouse racist and denigrating views about groups of people based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender expression, amongst others, while maintaining the privilege of being a member of this profession.
(4) Public Protection and Public Confidence
59The Member’s pattern of conduct undermines the confidence in the school community and makes the Member unsuitable for membership in the profession. The College must govern its members in a manner that does not undermine the public confidence in the profession (Frederick). Revocation sends a strong message to the public that there is no room in the Ontario education system for teachers to put their own intolerant and racist views ahead of the interests of students, colleagues and the education system itself. Removing the Member from the profession will also protect the public by ensuring that students will not be exposed to a member who has demonstrated significant professional and ethical failings.
60The Panel is satisfied that the penalty ordered is reasonable in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: March 24, 2025
Kirby Chown, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Stefano Fornazzari, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Kayla Stephenson
Member, Discipline Panel
1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.