DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Rosu 2025 ONOCT 3

Date: 2025-01-17

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

Mihai Rosu, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

MIHAI ROSU (REGISTRATION #544239)

PANEL: Linda Staudt, OCT, Chair

Alain Martel, OCT

Kayla Stephenson

HEARD: December 11, 2024

Danielle Miller, for the Ontario College of Teachers

Mihai Rosu, self-represented

Erica Richler, Independent Legal Counsel

PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

1This proceeding was heard electronically before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) on December 11, 2024, in accordance with rule 8.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee.

2Mihai Rosu (the “Member”) attended the hearing and did not have legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

A. PUBLICATION ban

3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.

B. THE ALLEGATIONS

4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated June 12, 2024 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Mihai Rosu 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 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);

(d) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1)(b) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);¹

(e) 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);

(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).²

C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

1. Mihai Rosu is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers in Good Standing. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.

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

3. The Member was hired by the Board to teach university/college level [XXX] and workplace [XXX] effective April 26, 2022 to the end of June 2022. The Member taught students both on-line and in-person.

4. At all material times, Student 1 and Student 2 were adult female students at the School in the Member’s [XXX] class.

April-June 2022

5. From late April to June 2022, complaints were made to the Principal and Vice-Principal of the School by some students in the Member’s university/college level [XXX] who were struggling with the course content.

6. On or about May 2, 2022, Student 2, sent an email to the Program Team Leader asking to change her [XXX] class because she found the Member hard to understand and expressed concern that she was falling behind in class.

7. The School administrators discussed the student concerns with the Member and he gave assurances that all would be fine soon. However, within a week, two other students reported feeling “lost” in the Member’s class.

8. On or about May 9, 2022 [sic], the Vice-Principal met with the Member to provide suggestions for improvement and advised him that another occasional teacher had been hired to tutor those students who were falling behind. However, the problems persisted and the occasional teacher was unable to provide the necessary support for the struggling students.

9. In the Member’s email responses to the Vice-Principal, he made inappropriate comments about Student 1, stating:

(a) that he had provided Student 1 with feedback, “…despite the stupid complain of an in impertinent student [sic]”;

(b) sarcastically referred to Student 1 as “a ‘genius’ for [the School]”;

(c) complained that Student 1 had sent her work to the Vice-Principal instead of him and refused to grade her work, saying that the Vice-Principal should now do it;

(d) referred to Student 1’s complaint about him as “some other stupid fake news invented by her email”;

(e) stated that, “It looks like my evaluation depends on the preferences of that impossible students [sic]”.

Attached hereto and marked are Exhibit “B” are copies of excerpts of emails regarding the inappropriate comments made about Student 1 by the Member.

10. The Member found Student 1’s behaviour to be disrespectful as she swore at him in front of the class, and smoked while attending the class virtually. On or about June 10, 2022, the Member made a comment to the class, telling them that Student 1, who was absent at the time, did not submit assigned work in a timely fashion and instead sent it to the Principal.

11. On or about June 15, 2022, the Member shared with the rest of the class, through Google Classroom, personal information about Students 1 and 2 (who had stopped attending class by this point), and made inappropriate comments to students, in that he:

(a) made a comment to the effect of, “I was removed due to some complaints from your colleagues. One of them made complaints, probably, because I asked her to redo two Tests and she did not feel like to do any job for the class. The other student made a complaint at the very beginning when I did not have the proper devices to do the lessons and not being assigned to Google classroom or Brightspace, this happening after one week. As a curiosity, she was looking for help from her ‘victim’ (myself) [sic]”;

(b) shared Student 1’s email sent to the School’s Principal regarding complaints about the [XXX] class;

(c) shared Student 1’s [XXX] test.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” are copies of the screenshots from Google Classroom regarding the above conduct.

12. On or about June 16, 2022, Student 2 sent a private message to the Member stating, “Hi sir, I am not very good at [XXX]. I’m not sure I am able to do this test. I am stuck. I definitely don’t want to cheat so I think I will keep it blank. I would also like if this can be private and stay between you and I and not the whole class.”

13. The Member did not respond to her message and instead, took a picture of it and publicly posted the comment in Google Classroom calling it a “complaint”. The Member did this to demonstrate to the rest of the class that Student 2 was struggling with [XXX]. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” are copies of the screenshots from Google Classroom regarding the above conduct.

14. On or about June 20, 2022, the Member stated to Student 2 in a private message in Google Classroom, “nobody disrespect you. Yo did a stupid complain at the beginning, as you notice I gave you extramarks at the first 3 assignments. Do it and I will proceed in your favour, but do it! Have a good sense and do the job required [sic].” This made Student 2 very upset. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the email sent by Student 2 to the Guidance Department of the School.

15. The Member had particular challenges dealing with Students 1 and 2, and had ongoing conflict with the Vice-Principal of the School. However, when the Member explained to his [XXX] class that he was being removed as their teacher and the reason why, the rest of the students shared their appreciation for his efforts and commented that they found him to be a very friendly and effective [XXX] teacher.

Board Discipline

16. The Board conducted an investigation regarding the Member’s conduct above. The Board concluded that discipline was warranted and issued a discipline letter and suspended the Member without pay for a period of five days from June 20 to June 25, 2022 inclusive. However, the Board subsequently reversed its decision to suspend the Member without pay and reimbursed him for the five days. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the discipline letter dated June 20, 2022.

GUILTY PLEA

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

18. The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(14), and 1(18) – unprofessional only.

19. By this document the Member states that:

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

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and having had the opportunity to obtain the advice of legal counsel.

20. In light of the Admitted Facts and the circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

D. DECISION

6The Panel was advised at the outset that the parties had entered into an agreement and that the Member would plead no contest. The Member initially did not answer the plea inquiry questions in an unequivocal manner. The Panel sought advice from Independent Legal Counsel and comments from both parties. After considering the Member’s comments and his further responses to the plea inquiry questions, the Panel was satisfied that the Member’s plea was voluntary, informed and unequivocal and proceeded with the hearing.

7Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (d) and (f) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(15) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. College Counsel explained that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the allegation under subsection 1(15) was being sought as a by-product of negotiations in the adversarial process that resulted in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea. College Counsel stated that the College was seeking permission to withdraw the allegation under subsection 1(19) because all of the allegations relate to the Member’s conduct in the classroom which is better captured under subsection 1(18). College Counsel submitted that subsection 1(19) is more typically alleged in relation to a member’s conduct outside of the teaching practice. The Panel granted College’s Counsel’s requests to withdraw the allegations under subsections 1(15) and 1(19).

8Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on December 11, 2024 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(14) and 1(18) (unprofessional only).

E. REASONS FOR DECISION

9The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 16 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the heads of misconduct set out above.

10The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member made inappropriate comments about Student 1 and Student 2 to other students in the class, as well as made inappropriate comments about Student 1 to the Vice-Principal, and also shared students’ personal information with other students in the classroom.

11The Panel finds that the Member abused students verbally, contrary to subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. Teachers are expected to communicate with students in a sensitive and respectful manner. Instead, the Member was disparaging toward Student 2 in his message to her, where he told her she made a “stupid complain” [sic] and told her to “[h]ave a good sense”. The Member also publicized to the rest of the class the fact that Students 1 and 2 had made complaints about the Member and attributed those complaints as the reason for his removal from the class. He also stated that “[o]ne of them made complaints, probably, because I asked her to redo two [t]ests and she did not feel like to do any job for the class” and referred to himself as the other student’s “victim”. The Member’s behaviour amounts to verbal abuse as it would reasonably cause students to feel uncomfortable in the classroom.

12The Panel finds that the Member abused students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to subsection 1(7.2). The Panel finds that the Member’s comments to Student 2 above were psychologically or emotionally abusive. His comments were insulting and the Admitted Facts indicate they made Student 2 feel very upset. Additionally, it is emotionally or psychologically abusive for a teacher to make inappropriate comments about students to other students, like when the Member blamed Student 1 and Student 2 for his removal from class. The Member also shared Student 1’s [XXX] test and her complaint to the Vice-Principal on Google Classroom. As well, the Member posted a photo of a message that Student 2 shared in confidence and expressly requested remain private, on Google Classroom to demonstrate to the class that Student 2 was struggling with the material. It is psychological or emotional abuse for members to single out students in ways that can embarrass them and to share personal information about students with other students in the class.

13The Panel finds that the Member failed to comply with the Act, regulations or by-laws, specifically section 26 of the by-laws, contrary to subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 when he failed to maintain the standards of practice and the ethical standards for the teaching profession.

14The Member breached the standards of practice in his conduct towards Student 1 and Student 2. The “Commitment to Students and Student Learning” standard, requires that members “are dedicated in their care and commitment to students” and that they “treat students equitably and with respect and are sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning”. The standard of practice of “Professional Knowledge” requires members to reflect on student development to inform their professional practice. The “Professional Practice” standard requires that members to use appropriate pedagogy to plan for and respond to the needs of individual students. The “Leadership in Learning Communities” standard requires members to create safe and supportive learning environments. The Member did not respond with sensitivity or with dedication towards the development and learning of Student 1 and Student 2, who were struggling with the curriculum. Rather than being supportive of Student 1 and Student 2’s concerns, the Member referred to their concerns as “stupid” complaints, made inappropriate comments about them to other students in the class, and shared information about Student 1 and Student 2’s academic struggles with the class. He also made inappropriate comments about Student 1 to the Vice-Principal. Such conduct runs counter to the expectations of the standards of practice and does not promote a safe learning environment.

15The Panel further finds that the Member failed to adhere to the ethical standards of the profession. The way in which the Member wrote about Student 1 to the Vice-Principal, and about Student 1 and Student 2 to the rest of the class was not compassionate and did not demonstrate a commitment to their well-being as required by the ethical standard of “Care”. The Member did not honour their dignity or emotional wellness, as required by the standard of “Respect”, when he shared Student 1’s [XXX] test and complaint, and Student 2’s private message on Google classroom. In doing so, he also breached the ethical standard of “Trust”, particularly by expressly ignoring Student 2’s request to keep her message private.

16The Panel finds that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). Conduct characterized as “unprofessional” involves a disregard for a member’s professional obligations, including the requirement that members demonstrate good judgment. The Member may have felt disrespected by the behaviour of Student 1 who smoked while attending his class online and who swore at the Member in front of the class. However, the Member was expected to maintain his professionalism, despite these challenges. The Member showed poor judgment in making derogatory remarks about Student 1 and her concerns to the Vice-Principal, even after receiving a reminder from the Vice-Principal to discontinue this behaviour (Exhibit B of Exhibit 2). Furthermore, the Member also demonstrated a lack of professional judgment by sharing students’ personal information, especially when in one instance a student expressly asked him not to share the information with the class.

F. PENALTY DECISION

17The parties entered into a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on December 11, 2024, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:

1. The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario or by videoconference and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”).

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

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee the Member shall enrol in, and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar in professionalism, with a focus on appropriate communication with students and colleagues, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee;

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

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

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

18The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is neither unduly harsh nor unduly lenient such as to bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Pavlovic, 2021 ONOCT 31; Ontario College of Teachers v. Sypus, 2018 ONOCT 9; Ontario College of Teachers v. Donaldson, 2019 ONOCT 114; and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gefter, 2017 ONOCT 47.

19The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. There are three aggravating factors in the Member’s case. First, the Member was reminded by the Vice-Principal to “speak appropriately regarding students at all times” and asked the Member to review the ethical standards of the teaching profession. Despite this, the Member went on to make inappropriate comments about students to other students and as well as additional inappropriate comments about Student 1 to the Vice-Principal. Secondly, it is aggravating that the Member shared a student’s poor academic performance with other students and thirdly, the Panel agrees with the submission of College Counsel that the Member deliberately embarrassed a student when he shared information about their poor academic performance. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted their misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing, and has not been the subject of discipline proceedings in the past. In addition, the Panel accepts the submission of College Counsel that some of the inappropriate language used by the Member may be attributed to the fact that English is not the Member’s first language. Furthermore, though the Member had particular challenges dealing with Students 1 and 2, when the Member explained to his [XXX] class that he was being removed as their teacher and the reason why, the rest of the students shared their appreciation for his efforts and commented that they found him to be a very friendly and effective [XXX] teacher. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed would not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

20The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct, warrants a reprimand. Members are expected to demonstrate a commitment to students through respectful communication and to be aware of how the comments they make may impact students. Members are also expected to communicate professionally with administrators and refrain from disclosing students’ personal information to their classmates. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

21The Panel finds that it is appropriate for the Member to successfully complete a course of instruction in professionalism, with a focus on appropriate communication with students and colleagues. This will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students and colleagues.

22The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Footnotes

1. 1Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.
2. 2Allegation withdrawn at the request of College Counsel.