Governing Ourselves

Three-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 certificates 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. Copies of full decisions are available through library@oct.ca.

Hearings

Member: Martin Richard Guibord
Registration number: 199516
Decision: Suspension, reprimand and conditions

On February 23, 2009, following nine days of a public hearing held over a 10-month period, a Discipline Committee panel found Martin Richard Guibord guilty of professional misconduct for abusing four students physically, verbally, psychologically or emotionally between August 28 and October 16, 2003.

Guibord was certified to teach in 2001 and taught for the Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l’Est ontarien. He was present at the hearings and was represented by legal counsel.

The panel heard evidence that Guibord resorted to physical force, including physically restraining students in order to discipline them. On a number of occasions, the teacher restricted the movements of students aged seven to 10 who had social behaviour disorders.

Guibord repeatedly administered physical restraint, including crossing the arms of students and holding their wrists. Among other things he held the wrist of a student in order to take him to the bus, even though the student did not want to return home. In another case the incidents of restraint left mild bruising on a student’s wrist.

The teacher also held a child in front of him with his arms crossed in front of his body. He also restrained a student who was sitting on the floor, his legs in front of him and his arms crossed, by holding his wrists.

In support of its deliberations the panel established three intervention criteria which, at the time the events occurred, should have guided Guibord in deciding whether to use physical restraint:

The various professionals and colleagues of Guibord who testified at the hearing unanimously approved these criteria. Guibord also demonstrated in his testimony that he was familiar with these criteria.

These criteria are linked to general principles governing the use of physical force and restraint in schools. The principles are based on the testimony of teaching experts and professionals and on the evidence produced.

These criteria and principles guided the panel in its analysis of the cases of physical contact and restraint presented at the hearing.

The panel found that the frequency of physical contact occurring over a few months in the teacher’s classroom demonstrates that the measures used were not exceptions but common practice.
The panel judged that Guibord’s actions do not reflect those of a teacher facing imminent danger but of a teacher focused on control and discipline in the classroom.

After hearing the testimony and reviewing the relevant and admissible exhibits, the panel directed the Registrar to suspend Guibord’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of six months and directed him to appear before the panel in order to be reprimanded.

The panel also ordered the member to complete a course on understanding and maintaining the standards of practice and ethics for the teaching profession, at his own expense, within six months following the date of the order.

The panel stated that suspension of Guibord’s certification “must serve to deter other members of the profession from resorting to physical force or the restraint of a student outside the framework that has already been defined by the profession.”

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.


Member: Not identified
Decision: Reprimand and conditions

A Discipline Committee panel reprimanded a principal for inappropriate behaviour and comments that upset her colleagues.

The principal, a member of the teaching profession since June 1987, attended the hearing on November 23 and December 15, 2009 with her lawyer.

Evidence showed that the principal raised her sweater and flashed her brassiere to two staff members. Recognizing the nature of her action, she told them to write letters to her describing the incident. The staff wrote the letters under duress because they reported to her.

In jest, she told a staff member, “If you were any more organized it would come out your ass.” Also in jest, she intimidated a teacher by telling her to be careful because she was the teacher’s principal and their husbands worked together.

The member invited staff to attend a sales presentation by a staff member during a professional development day to view and buy jewellery. She also offended teachers by making a comment of a sexual nature after a kindergarten teacher told colleagues that she and her husband were spending the coming weekend alone.

On another occasion the member approached staff members to obtain confidential information from an AEFO advisory committee they attended, when she knew or ought to have known it would be improper for the staff to make such a disclosure.

The Conseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’Ontario assigned the principal to home duty while it conducted an investigation. Afterward, it notified her of its intent to dismiss her. Subsequently, she agreed with the board to resign in June 2007.

Having considered the evidence, a plea of no contest, a statement of uncontested facts, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

She was ordered to appear before the panel for a reprimand. The reprimand will be expunged from her certificate after a year.

She was also ordered to complete a course on interpersonal relationships, at her own expense, within 60 days of the date of the order.

The panel gave serious consideration to the joint submission on penalty and had reservations about publishing a summary without the member’s name. But balancing its duty to protect the public interest against the serious possibility of a court challenge should it reject the joint submission, the panel accepted the penalty and concluded that it provided a tolerable level of protection of the public interest.

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.


Member: Not identified
Decision: Suspension and conditions

A Discipline Committee panel has ordered the Registrar to suspend a member’s certificate for three months for failing to comply with a previous Discipline Committee panel order.
The College conducted a public hearing on December 8, 2009 with the member in attendance, representing himself.

The panel heard evidence that the member had been ordered by an earlier Discipline Committee panel to complete classroom management and professional boundaries courses following a finding of professional misconduct against him in May 2006.

In the recent 2009 hearing, the panel found the member guilty of professional misconduct after considering the evidence that the courses had not been completed within the time required, the member’s guilty plea, and a statement of facts agreed to by the member and the College. The panel also considered a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of the member and College counsel.

The Discipline Committee takes the completion of terms, conditions and orders very seriously and considers failure to obey them to be a serious breach that must be addressed to ensure the integrity of the College’s discipline process.

However, the panel recognized that the member did not have legal counsel in 2006 and therefore may not have understood the gravity of the discipline decision made at that time.

The member testified that he did not intend to defy the order and assumed that since he was not seeking employment in education the order did not apply unless he decided to return to teaching.

He told the panel that he was presented with a summation of the facts before the recent hearing and felt that there was no room to negotiate and therefore reluctantly accepted because he was intent on preserving his reputation and name in the community, where he is now successfully engaged in another career.

He said he had no legal representation because he no longer belonged to a teacher union and could not afford his own lawyer.

The panel concluded that, had he sought legal representation, he might have achieved a different outcome in negotiations with the College, and therefore it decided to vary the agreed penalty, which called for publication of the member’s name.

The panel ordered the Registrar to suspend the member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for three months. He must also provide proof to the Registrar of having completed a course on classroom management and a course on recognition and adherence to professional boundaries before returning to teaching.

The precondition of course completion precludes any further breach of the order of the Discipline Committee, the panel said.

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.


Member: Not identified
Decision: Reprimand and conditions

A Discipline Committee panel held a public hearing on November 2, 2009 regarding allegations of professional misconduct against a teacher for failing to take all the steps required to ensure the safety of a student.

The teacher was certified to teach in July 2005 and taught in the Primary division for the Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest. She was present at the hearings and was represented by legal counsel.

The panel heard evidence that the teacher failed to take the necessary steps to prevent a classroom door from closing on the fingers of a five-year-old male student while she was escorting him to the principal’s office. On another occasion she grabbed the student by the hand and sat him on a chair.

After reviewing the evidence, the plea, the agreement on the facts, the joint submission on penalty and submissions from counsel, the panel verbally reprimanded the teacher for professional misconduct.
The panel also ordered the member to complete, within eight months and at her own expense, an Additional Basic Qualification course Special Education – Part II that has been pre-approved by the Registrar. The teacher must also provide proof to the Registrar of her successful completion of the course no later than 30 days after the course ends.

The panel justified its decision by stating that this course will serve a remedial purpose and will further sensitize the teacher to student needs.

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.


Member: Hubert Levi Antone, OCT
Registration number: 423793
Decision: Reprimand and conditions

A Discipline Committee panel reprimanded Hubert Levi Antone for violating community standards by sharing a bed with an 11-year-old boy who was in his care over four weekends.

Antone and his lawyers attended the public hearing conducted over four days and ending on September 29, 2009. He denied allegations of sexual abuse.

The panel relied on evidence from the member and the child regarding four occasions between October and December 2006 when the boy slept in Antone’s bed along with Antone and his granddaughter.

The panel heard that Antone cared for 11 foster children and raised two of his own over 35 years without any issues or allegations. The Thames Valley DSB teacher, who joined the profession in January 1996, continues to work for the board and organizes fundraising activities to ensure that students are involved in their First Nations heritage.

During the time of the alleged incidents, Antone worked a part-time job as a bouncer at a bar, arriving home between 4 and 4:30 AM. He then rose at 6 AM to go to the hospital at 7 AM to feed his mother breakfast. He said that, as part of his upbringing, family members often shared a bed in order to sleep.

In all discipline cases the onus of proof is on the College. The standard of proof applied by the panel was the balance of probabilities, using clear, cogent and convincing evidence. In this case the panel determined that the boy’s testimony was not cogent, clear or convincing and said that he appeared to have been coached.

Witnesses also testified that the boy seemed to be comfortable with Antone and his family. The granddaughter testified that the boy never said anything to her about her grandfather acting inappropriately. Given the circumstances it was “improbable” that the alleged sexual touching occurred, the panel decided.

After considering the evidence, the onus and standard of proof and the submissions of legal counsel, the panel determined that Antone’s conduct was unbecoming a member of the profession and found him guilty of professional misconduct.

Antone was ordered to appear before the panel for a reprimand within three months of the date of the order. The panel also directed the Registrar to impose conditions on the member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration such that Antone must complete a course on boundary violations and issues, at his own expense, within three months.

“The member needs direction regarding sleeping arrangements for children and the need to communicate these arrangements to parents,” the panel said, explaining its reason for the reprimand. “His behaviour is not acceptable to the greater community or to members of the profession.”

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.


Member: Not Identified
Decision: Reprimand and conditions

A Discipline Committee panel reprimanded a member for taking photos of Grade 8 girls on his cellular telephone without their knowledge or consent.

The member, who joined the profession in June 1996 and taught for the York Catholic DSB, attended the February 18, 2010 public hearing with his lawyers.

The panel heard that the member displayed his camera to the students and continued to take pictures of them despite warnings from his principal. After an investigation, the York Region Children’s Aid Society concluded that there was some cause for concern with respect to the teacher’s behaviour. The board suspended him from duty on February 19, 2007.

After considering the evidence, a statement of uncontested facts, a plea of no contest, a joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel found the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The panel ordered the member to appear before it to face a reprimand and to complete a course on appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues within three months at his own expense.

“The reprimand acts as a specific deterrent to the member and demonstrates that professional misconduct is taken seriously by the College,” the panel said in its written decision. “The course on appropriate boundaries and boundary violation issues serves the goal of remediation in providing the member with tools to successfully return to the classroom.”

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.


Member: Shawn Gavin Spencer, OCT
Registration number: 195657
Decision: Reprimand and conditions

A Discipline Committee panel reprimanded TDSB principal Shawn Gavin Spencer for trying to pursue a personal relationship with a teacher.

Spencer, who joined the teaching profession in June 1991, attended the February 10, 2010 hearing with his lawyer.

The panel heard evidence that Spencer sent cards and gifts and made unwanted phone calls in efforts to pursue a female staff member. He also made unwanted attempts to discuss the relationship at school. As a result, the woman, who told Spencer that they were only friends, felt uncomfortable and tried to avoid contact.

Police intervened at one point when the woman refused to take Spencer’s calls at her home, and she saw him on the street outside her house. The police told Spencer they would lay charges if his behaviour continued. Spencer expressed remorse and said that he would not bother the woman again. However, he tried again to engage her in conversation at the school.

In January 2008, Spencer pleaded guilty to a charge of harassment. He was discharged by the court on condition that he serve 18 months probation and not associate or communicate with the woman or contact her, directly or indirectly.

Consequently, Spencer resigned as a principal and was reassigned as an elementary teacher.
Having heard the evidence, a guilty plea, an agreed statement of facts, joint submission on penalty and the submissions of counsel, the panel found Spencer guilty of professional misconduct.

The panel ordered Spencer to appear before it for a reprimand and to complete a course on boundary violations, professional ethics and peer relationships at his own expense within 60 days. The panel directed the Registrar to suspend Spencer’s teaching certificate for three months if he failed to fulfill the conditions within the allotted time.

In its written decision, the panel said that Spencer’s pursuit of the teacher “both in and out of school and his conviction for criminal harassment is conduct unbecoming a member. He committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as dishonourable and unprofessional.”

“The committee appreciated its obligation to give serious consideration to a joint submission on penalty,” the panel wrote. “The committee accepted the joint submission on penalty as being within the appropriate range. However, the committee has concerns that the penalty was at the minimal level of the range regarding the protection of the public and remediation.”

The panel’s decision appears on the College’s public register.

Glossary of terms

The vocabulary used to report disciplinary hearings reflects their quasi-judicial nature. For a glossary of terms, visit www.oct.ca.