1 / 28

By: Amy Wright

John Shewan and Ilze Shewan v. The Board of School Trustee of School District No. 34 Board of School Trustees of School District No. 34 (Abbotsford) and Shewan et al. By: Amy Wright. Agenda. Case Brief Overview of Case

aldan
Download Presentation

By: Amy Wright

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. John Shewan and Ilze Shewan v. The Board of School Trustee of School District No. 34Board of School Trustees of School District No. 34 (Abbotsford) and Shewan et al. By: Amy Wright

  2. Agenda • Case Brief • Overview of Case • Significance of Case to Education • Group Discussions

  3. Overview of Case • Relevant Facts • John Shewan and Ilze Shewan • Husband and Wife • School Teachers with School District #34 (Abbotsford) • Suspension for six weeks

  4. Incident Mr. Shewan took semi-nude photographs of wife Photo competition Blank entry Expectation of anonymity Participants receive $50 if photo is chosen Shewans motivation for entering contest – self image

  5. Photograph Publication Letter to Mrs. Shewan Photograph published in magazine Photograph Caption: Ilze, S. 34, teacher Clearbook,BC Canada Photography by her husband, John G

  6. Published Photograph Phone call to Superintendent – Radio Station Superintendent confirmed identity of Mrs. Shewan Meeting was arranged with the Shewans Superintendent informed board

  7. Decision – School Board The School Board decided to suspend Mrs. Shewan pursuant to s.122 of the School Act Section 122 (a) of the School Act: A board may at any time suspend a teacher with or without pay from the performance of his duties (a) for misconduct, neglect of duty or refusal to neglect to obey a lawful order of the board.

  8. Decision – School Board Board set date for statutory meeting Statutory Meeting –January 30th Views of Mrs. Shewans Decision to suspend Mr. Shewan Statutory Meeting set for February4th Teachers

  9. Decision-School Board February 4th The Board suspended Mrs. Shewan for misconduct pursuant of s.122 of the School Act. She was suspended for 6 weeks February 5th Mr. Shewan was notified about his suspension, also for a period of six weeks

  10. Decision to Appeal The Shewans The Shewans decided to appeal the decision ordering their suspension An Appeal was placed with the Board of Reference pursuant of s.129 of the School Act Board of Reference is an appeal system to ensure fairness and justice when teachers are suspended or dismissed by school boards.

  11. John Shewan and Ilze Shewan v. The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 34 (Abbotsford)Board of ReferenceApril 9 - June 18 , 1985

  12. Main Issues (1) What test should be used in determining misconduct? (2) Did the behaviour of the Shewans constitute misconduct? (3) If there was misconduct , what is the appropriate penalty?

  13. Decision-Review Board • The Review Board held in a 2-1 decision that there was no misconduct by the Shewans • The Shewans were suspended for 10 days • Both teachers were reinstated with full pay • Teachers should be compensated by the School Board for lost wages and benefits

  14. Supreme Court of BritishColumbia • The School Board decided to bring the case to the attention of the Supreme Court of British Columbia Board of School Trustees of School District no.34 (Abbotsford) v. Shewan et al. January 30, 1986

  15. Main Issues • (1) What was the nature of the appeal granted to the court by s. 129 of the School Act? • (2) Did the Reference Board make an error when it found that there was no misconduct? • (3) If there was misconduct, what was the appropriate penalty?

  16. Supreme Court of British Columbia • The court held that the type of test used in determining misconduct, the obscenity-based test of standard general test was wrong • The judge, Mr. Justice Bouck said that the proper question was whether the conduct of the teachers was within the moral standards recognized within the community where the teachers were employed

  17. Decision- Supreme court of British Columbia • The Supreme court of British Columbia concluded that : • There was misconduct within the meaning of s. 122 of the School Act • The penalty was set as 4 weeks suspension

  18. British Columbia Court of Appeal • The Shewans took the case to the British Columbia Court of Appeal Shewan et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 34 (Abbotsford) December 21, 1987

  19. Issues (1) Whether Mr. Justice Bouck exceeded his powers as an appellate judge in substituting his own views of what was misconduct for that held by the Board of Reference? (2) What meaning should be given to the word “misconduct” according to its use in s. 122(1) of the School Act, and what standard ought to be applied in determining what behaviours constitute misconduct? (3) Was the duration of the suspension determined by Mr. Justice Bouck appropriate? (4) Should the cost of the Supreme Court proceedings be apportioned because the school board succeeded on only one issue (misconduct issue)

  20. Appeal Court Findings The Court of Appeal did not reverse the findings of the British Columbia Supreme Court The Supreme Court was entitled to make the order which the Board of Reference should have made if it had used the correct test

  21. Appeal Court Findings The British Columbia Court of Appeal has held that: “The reason why off the job conduct may amount to misconduct is that a teacher holds a position of trust, confidence and responsibility. If he or she acts in an improper way, on or off the job, there may be a loss of public confidence in the teacher and in the public school system, a loss of respect by students for the teacher involved, and other teachers generally, and there may be controversy within the school and within the community which disrupts the carrying of the educational system.”

  22. British Columbia Appeal CourtDecision The Appeal Court found that the behaviour of the Shewans justified misconduct under s. 122(1)(a) of the School Act The court also agreed with the suspension of 4 weeks set by the Supreme Court of British Columbia

  23. Significance of the Case to Education This case has highlighted some important issues in education: 1.The professional role of teachers and the high expectations placed upon teacher to act as societal role models 2. Whether there is a difference between on-the-job and off-the-job conduct of teachers 3.How are the personal rights and freedoms of teachers protected? 4.What circumstances involving teacher behaviours constitute misconduct?

  24. Discussion Question What do you think about the case? (E.g. do you agree/disagree with the findings of the courts?

  25. Discussion The case highlighted that the nature of the teaching profession requires that teachers subscribe to higher standards of behaviour than other citizens. Teachers are supposed to be moral role models that pass on the “ideal” values of the society. Teachers are constantly under the watchful eyes of students, parents, the school system and the community. Question : Do you think that teachers should be held to this high level of scrutiny?

  26. Discussion The case was a fine example of behaviour of an employee that brings the image and reputation of the employer into dispute with local community standards. There seems to be a lack of clear definition and guidelines as to what is exactly is “teacher misconduct”. Question: What rules do you think that teachers should set for themselves in governing their own behaviours when outside of school?

  27. Thank You! Thank You for your participation!

  28. References 1. Shewan v. Abbotsford School District No. 34, [1987] B.C.J. No. 2495, 47 D.L.R. (4th) 106, 21 B.C.L.R. (2d) 93, 8 A.C.W.S. (3d) 164 Retrieved on May 14, 2010 from website: http://www.lexisnexis.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/ca/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9160272706&format=GNBFULL&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9160272709&cisb=22_T9160272708&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=281010&docNo=1 2. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 34 (Abbotsford) and Shewan et al. [1986] B.C.J. No. 3256 26 D.L.R. (4th) 54 Retrieved on May 14, 2010 from website: http://www.lexisnexis.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/ca/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9160449279&format=GNBFULL&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9160449282&cisb=22_T9160449281&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=281010&docNo=3 3. Suracusa, G.S, The John and Ilze Shewan Case: Unconventional Teacher Behaviour: Private Life in Public Conflict. Retrieved on May 14, 2010 from website: http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/bitstream/1892/6111/1/b14442759.pdf 4. Google Images. Website:http://www.google.com/imghp 5. Legal Status of Teachers. Retrieved on May 14, 2010 from website: http://www.unb.ca/education/bezeau/eact/eact20.html

More Related