|
HearingsThree-member panels of the Discipline Committee conduct public hearings into cases of alleged incompetence or professional misconduct. The panels are a mix of elected and appointed Council members. If found guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence, a member's certificate may be revoked, suspended or limited. In cases of professional misconduct only, the committee may also reprimand, admonish or counsel the member, impose a fine, publish its order in Professionally Speaking, or order the member to pay costs. Panels of the Discipline Committee have ordered summaries of these recent disciplinary cases to be published in Professionally Speaking. Member: Frederick Paul Fromm A Discipline Committee panel held public hearings on January 25, 26, and 27, 2005, April 17, 18, 19, May 1, 2, 3, 8 and June 12 and 13, 2007 into 10 allegations of professional misconduct against Frederick Paul Fromm for conduct undermining the values of society and the duties and functions assigned to teachers. Fromm was first certified to teach in June 1973 and was employed by the Peel DSB between 1974 and 1993. He represented himself at the hearings. The panel received evidence that Fromm, while employed in Peel, co-founded and was research director for Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform (C-FAR) and co-founded the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE). Both organizations espouse beliefs and values contrary to the principles of multiculturalism and tolerance. During a speech for C-FAR in 1989, Fromm discussed the “threat to our rights and freedoms from multiculturalism.” Fromm associated with skinhead supporters at a public meeting of the Toronto Mayor’s Committee on Community and Race Relations; participated in a Martyr’s Day Rally sponsored by the Heritage Front in conjunction with C-FAR, applauding the keynote speaker who ended his speech with the Nazi salute and the words “white power”; attended a Heritage Front meeting to celebrate Hitler’s birthday; heckled a native Canadian speaker at the 1989 Mayor’s Committee meeting with “scalp him”; and attended, organized and spoke at events involving white supremacists or similar organizations. Fromm “spoke against multiculturalism and non-white immigration, used racist language in relation to Jews, Asians and Aboriginal people while participating in public events involving individuals and organizations with racist views,” the panel said in its written decision. “This conduct continued despite reprimands from his employer and a Ministry-commissioned investigation into his activities. His continued actions significantly affected students and staff and resulted in creating a poisoned school environment and these actions were inconsistent with the values of the profession,” the panel said. The panel wrote: “The College did not allege that the member failed to adequately perform his professional duties in the classroom. This case is not about the member’s right to hold political views that are unpopular, or to participate in legal political activities. It is about whether a teacher who publicly expresses views which are contrary to the values of the profession and the education system, and which have a negative impact on the education system, is entitled to be a member of this College. The member’s conduct outside the classroom has detrimentally impacted the school community and has caused a loss of confidence in both Mr. Fromm as a teacher and in the Ontario school system.” “The severity of the misconduct, its ongoing duration and the degree of harm caused to the school community was high,” the panel said. The panel relied upon the Supreme Court of Canada ruling about the importance of teacher conduct that takes place outside the formal boundaries of the classroom. In Ross versus New Brunswick School District No 15 [1996] 1 SCR 825 at paragraph 44, the Court held: “By their conduct, teachers as ‘medium’ must be perceived to uphold the values, beliefs and knowledge sought to be transmitted by the school system. The conduct of a teacher is evaluated on the basis of his or her position, rather than whether the conduct occurs within the classroom or beyond. Teachers are seen by the community to be the medium for the educational message and because of the community position they occupy, they are not able to ‘choose which hat they will wear on what occasion’… teachers do not necessarily check their teaching hats at the school yard gate and may be perceived to be wearing their teaching hats even off duty.” Having considered the evidence and onus and standard of proof, the panel found Fromm guilty of professional misconduct and directed the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration. The panel said there was no doubt that Fromm’s conduct was in conflict with the values of the education system. “His expressed views that deny the basic equality and dignity of every person go to the very heart of the public education system. The impact of that conduct was also clear – disruption, tension, fear, mistrust – both in terms of those within his school community and the public at large.” The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Louis Rémillard A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on September 18, 2007 into two allegations of professional misconduct against Louis Rémillard for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old female student. Rémillard, who was certified to teach in August 1991 and taught at the secondary level for the Conseil scolaire catholique de district du Grand Nord de l’Ontario, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that Rémillard held telephone conversations of a personal nature with the student, met her after school off campus and drove her to and from a Harvey’s restaurant where they had a soft drink and talked. Based on the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea and a joint submission on penalty, the panel reprimanded Rémillard for professional misconduct. The panel further directed the Registrar to suspend Rémillard’s teaching certificates for a month if he failed to complete a course on appropriate teacher-student boundaries at his own expense within eight months of the decision. The panel said that Rémillard “showed a lack of judgment” and “acted unwisely” in his behaviour with the student, which could have been misconstrued as a sign of friendship or as a personal relationship. “Specifically, the fact that he had discussions and telephone conversations of a personal nature with her constitutes conduct unbecoming a member of the profession,” the Discipline Committee panel wrote. The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Douglas Ian Brown A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on September 19, 2007 into four allegations of professional misconduct against Douglas Ian Brown for criminal conviction for indecent assaults against seven male students. Brown, who was certified to teach in June 1991 and worked for a private school in Toronto, attended the hearing by teleconference and was not represented by counsel. Brown pleaded not guilty to the allegations. The panel heard evidence that Brown was convicted on nine counts for indecently assaulting seven male students. He was sentenced to three years in jail. Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof and the submissions of College counsel and the member, the panel found Brown guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the Registrar to revoke Brown’s Certificates of Qualification and Registration. Brown “breached the trust of the public and the profession and brought the profession into disrepute,” the panel wrote in its decision. Publication of Brown’s name was ordered “so that the public may be reassured that such intolerable behaviour will be dealt with severely and appropriately by the profession,” the panel said. The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Geoffrey Matthew Muldoon A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on September 24, 2007 into three allegations of professional misconduct against Geoffrey Matthew Muldoon for inviting male minors into his home and offering them alcohol. Muldoon, who was certified to teach in February 2003 and works for the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic DSB, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that Muldoon invited boys he knew through coaching baseball and basketball in the community to his home for parent-approved sleepovers. He also engaged in Internet chat-line conversations with the boys and, on one occasion, offered the young male visitors alcohol, which one boy drank. Based on the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea and a joint submission on penalty, the panel reprimanded Muldoon for professional misconduct. The panel further directed Muldoon to complete a course on appropriate boundaries and violation issues, at his own expense, within three months of the panel’s decision. The panel viewed the invitation to his home for sleepovers, despite the permission of parents, to be “ill-advised and problematic,” leaving Muldoon vulnerable to the appearance and possible accusation of boundary violations. Further, the panel viewed the offering of alcohol to a minor as “irresponsible, unprofessional and conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.” The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Barry Frederick Schroeder A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on October 22, 2007 into six allegations of professional misconduct against Barry Frederick Schroeder for pursuing a relationship with a student that breached the boundaries of appropriate teacher-student relationships. Schroeder, who was certified to teach in June 1981, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that, over a period of six months, Schroeder engaged one of his Grade 11 male students in electronic messaging, invited him to meet outside of school, sought to exchange phone numbers and arranged to spend time with him during detention periods. The events caused the student such discomfort that he reported Schroeder’s conduct to school administrators and showed them e-mails from the teacher. Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a plea of no contest and a joint submission on penalty, the panel reprimanded Schroeder for professional misconduct. Further, it directed the Registrar to suspend Schroeder’s Certificates of Qualification and Registration for six months. Schroeder resigned from the College while disciplinary proceedings were in progress. He has undertaken never to teach again or to seek reinstatement of his certificates in the province of Ontario. The panel determined that Schroeder’s conduct was “unbecoming a member of the profession and disgraceful and dishonourable.” The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Not identified A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing into five allegations of professional misconduct against a member for failing to seek help for an assaulted student following a pre-Halloween scuffle. The member, employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth DSB, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that the member ran after a trespasser he suspected of pelting his house with eggs and paintballs during “Devil’s Night” pranks on October 30. Upon catching the winded youth, a student but not one of his own, the member observed that the 15-year-old had a backpack containing a carton of eggs, some of which were missing. The boy denied throwing eggs at the member’s house when asked. The member left to find a garbage can to dispose of the eggs. In the meantime, a crowd of onlookers circled the boy, grabbed his hair, assaulted him, threw an egg or eggs at him and then dispersed. The member returned to find the boy’s face and neck had been injured and asked the boy if he wanted him to take him home or call the police. The boy said he wanted to be left alone and didn’t need any help. The member then returned to his house without having sought help for the boy or trying to contact his parents. The boy, meanwhile, walked home, at least one kilometre away. The member acknowledged that after he became aware of the assault, he ought to have notified the appropriate authorities and/or the boy’s parents, prior to returning home. Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a guilty plea and a joint submission on penalty, the panel admonished the member for professional misconduct. “Teachers are expected to maintain the standards of the profession at all times, thereby ensuring the welfare of students whether within or outside the school setting,” the panel wrote in its decision. The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Michael Edward Corrigan A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on November 5, 2007 into six allegations of professional misconduct against Michael Edward Corrigan for a conviction for possession of marijuana. Corrigan, who was certified to teach in June 1973 and worked as a continuing education teacher with the Lambton Kent DSB, did not attend the hearing nor was he represented by counsel. The panel proceeded on the basis that Corrigan denied the allegations in the notice of hearing and, on his behalf, the Chair entered a plea of not guilty. The panel heard evidence that Corrigan was convicted on one count of possession of a controlled substance after marijuana and marijuana plants were found on his property. He was fined $500 and put on probation for 12 months. Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof and the submissions of College counsel, the panel reprimanded Corrigan for professional misconduct. It also directed the Registrar to suspend Corrigan’s Certificates of Qualification and Registration for 12 months. The panel agreed to reduce the suspension to six months if Corrigan appears in person before the Discipline Committee before March 15, 2008 to be reprimanded and if he successfully completes, at his own expense, a course on professional ethics pre-approved by the Registrar. In its written decision, the panel said that Corrigan’s contravention of a criminal law and his conduct constituted a serious error in judgment and were unbecoming to a member of the College. The suspension sends a message to the member and to the profession that possession of a controlled substance will not be tolerated. The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: David Shepstone Bertram A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on November 19, 2007 into seven allegations of professional misconduct against David Shepstone Bertram for excessive and inappropriate communication, socializing with and abusing two female students. Bertram, who was certified to teach in June 1989 and worked for the York Region DSB, did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that Bertram used the phone, e-mail and Internet instant messaging to communicate with two female students over a four-year period to develop intimate relationships with them. In its decision, the panel said Bertram’s communication with the students was “particularly offensive as it evolved into sexual invitations and questions of a very personal nature,” including discussing his own sexual experiences and whether the students were engaging in sexual activities. He also engaged in inappropriate touching on several occasions. Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a plea of no contest, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel found Bertram guilty of professional misconduct and directed the Registrar to revoke his Certificates of Qualification and Registration. “Students must be protected from members who engage in this type of misconduct,” the panel wrote. “Parents and the general public need to be reassured that members who behave in such a manner will not be tolerated by the profession.” The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Not identified A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing into five allegations of professional misconduct against a member for inappropriate personal contact and conversations with a 17-year-old female student. The member, employed by the Peel DSB, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that the member spent time alone in his car with the student, engaged her in conversations of a personal nature and received calls from the student requesting that they “hang out.” Although the member told the student they couldn’t “do anything” because of their student/teacher relationship, he consoled her with a hug. He did not disclose his relationship to any responsible authority or seek professional help about how to deal with the student and her feelings. The member acknowledged the relationship was inappropriate and unprofessional and that he should have acted sooner to request assistance in dealing with the student. Having considered the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, a plea of no contest and a joint submission on penalty, the panel found the member guilty of professional misconduct. The panel admonished the member and directed him to complete a course on appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues, at his own expense, within four months of the committee’s order, and to notify the Registrar within 30 days of the course’s successful completion. The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register. Member: Gerald Jacob Trutwin A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on December 6, 2007 into two allegations of professional misconduct against Gerald Jacob Trutwin for using inappropriate, unnecessary and unacceptable force to deal with three of his male students. Trutwin, who was certified to teach in May 1976 and works for the Hamilton-Wentworth DSB, attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The panel heard evidence that Trutwin had been charged with four counts of assault under the Criminal Code for using unacceptable force in dealing with three Grade 5 students. Trutwin agreed in a peace bond to have no direct or indirect contact with certain students, not to attend the school and to be on good behaviour for a year. Based on the evidence, an agreed statement of facts, plea of no contest, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel reprimanded Trutwin for professional misconduct. The panel ordered Trutwin to advise the Registrar prior to commencing employment in a teaching position involving children under 18. The panel further ordered Trutwin to complete a course in classroom management and one in anger management, at his own expense, no later than 60 days after starting work. As well, Trutwin must provide copies of his first two performance reviews to the Registrar. Trutwin is currently teaching adult education classes at the board. The panel said it was satisfied that completing the classroom and anger management courses would remediate Trutwin should he consider returning to teaching students 18 and under. Submitting his first two performance reviews would also serve to protect students, the panel said. The decision appears on the College’s public register. Glossary of terminologyThe vocabulary used to report disciplinary hearings reflects their quasi-judicial nature. If you wonder what some terms mean, help is at hand. For past and future reference, the College has posted a glossary of terms on its web site. A link to the glossary can be found on the decision-summary page. Visit Glossary of Terms. |
