The College investigates and considers complaints about members that relate to alleged professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. If the Investigation Committee concludes that a complaint does not relate to one of those three matters or is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, it does not proceed with the complaint.
Approximately four out of five complaints are not referred to the Discipline Committee but are dismissed or resolved by other means. Examples of cases considered by the Investigation Committee and not referred to a hearing are provided here.
investigations
Case #1
Complaint: Member’s follow-up to IPRC meeting
Outcome of investigation: Not referred to a hearing and no further action
Parents of a student who was the subject of an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) meeting filed a complaint against a member, alleging that she withheld information and delivered incorrect information following the meeting. The member was not the student’s teacher, and the complainants had not attended the meeting.
The complainants stated that the member withheld from them the results of the IPRC meeting and that the member also provided them with false information, stating that their child’s acceptance to a program was conditional on certain pre-program requirements when in fact there were no conditions.
A panel of the Investigation Committee reviewed the relevant documentation, including information gathered from the complainants, the member, school staff and the board. In its decision, the panel noted that according to Ontario Regulation 181/98, the responsibility to inform parents of a decision made in an IPRC meeting rests with the chair of that meeting, and that given that the member was not the chair, the responsibility for communicating the decision to the complainants did not rest with the member.
Regarding the allegation of provision of incorrect information to the complainants, the panel determined that the information received as part of the investigation was inconsistent and it was therefore not appropriate to refer the matter to the Discipline Committee.
The panel also noted that an e-mail sent by school staff three days after the member and principal had met with the parents following the miscommunication would have clarified any confusion as the e-mail clearly stated that the offered program placement was not conditional.
Case #2
Complaint: Physical altercation with a student
Outcome of investigation: Written admonishment
The College received correspondence from an employer reporting that a member, while supervising students during a sport activity, lost his temper, shoved a student, who fell to the ground, and then struck the student with his foot. The employer reported that the student did not suffer any injuries. The employer stated that there were circumstances that mitigated the member’s conduct, including the member’s sleep deprivation due to a documented medical condition. As well, the employer said that the member’s conduct was uncharacteristic. No criminal charges were laid, and the Children’s Aid Society chose not to investigate the incident.
In his response, the member did not contest the fact that he had acted in an aggressive manner. He stated that the incident had occurred after he witnessed the student throw a ball toward the head of another student.
The panel noted that the member acknowledged responsibility in this matter, took multiple steps to rectify the situation, including apologizing to all parties involved and agreeing to remove himself from the supervision of the sport activity, and also accepted an unpaid multiple-day suspension from his employer. The panel acknowledged the seriousness of the matter; however, due to the reasons cited above, decided not to refer the member to a hearing of the Discipline Committee but rather to admonish the member in writing for the conduct described in the complaint.
Case #3
Complaint: Emotional and psychological abuse
Outcome of investigation: Reminder
The parents of a student with special needs filed a complaint pertaining to their child’s classroom teacher, stating a variety of concerns that they felt resulted in the member creating an environment of emotional and psychological abuse for their child.
The complainants alleged that that the member ignored the student’s difficulties, failed to implement Individual Education Plan (IEP) modifications, blamed the student for his difficulties and made statements to the student to that effect. The panel noted that some of the information received did not support the allegations. For example, information provided by a school administrator demonstrated that the member was attempting to implement the IEP by providing extra time for completion of tests and assignments, access to a quiet workspace and access to a computer, to accommodate the student’s needs as stated in the IEP. Thus, the panel was of the view that the information before it was sufficiently inconsistent to support the referral of the allegations to the Discipline Committee.
The complainants also alleged that the member failed to demonstrate patience, respect, and self-control while interacting with the student, and that the member had, on more than one occasion, yelled with his mouth a short distance from the student’s face. With respect to these allegations, the panel noted that the member had, in an e-mail to the complainants, indicated that he had “lit into” the student and also that a school official had stated that the member possessed a loud shouting voice. In light of this information, the panel reminded the member to, at all times, express his concerns to students and parents in a constructive and temperate manner.
Glossary of terms
The vocabulary used to report disciplinary hearings reflects their quasi-judicial nature. For a glossary of terms, visit www.oct.ca.
