Articles

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the University of Waterloo discriminated against a student applicant on the basis of disability in refusing admission. The decision provides helpful insight into how educational institutions can meet the substantive and procedural aspects of the duty to accommodate in their student admission processes.

A school board was recently found vicariously liable for historical sexual abuse that the plaintiff was subjected to by her high school teacher.

Important legislative amendments to provisions of the federal Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp) took effect on March 1, 2021. These amendments were made through Bill C-78 and were originally scheduled to come into force on July 1, 2020; however, the Government of Canada deferred the effective date to March 1, 2021 due to the extraordinary circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Longueépée v. University of Waterloo, 2020 ONCA 830, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the University of Waterloo had discriminated against Roch Longueépée when it refused him admission on the basis of his previous grades, which were the result of undiagnosed and unaccommodated disabilities. This decision is significant not only for its contribution to human rights jurisprudence, but also for how it applies the administrative law principles set out by the Supreme Court in Vavilov.

“Gikinoo-amaadiwin” in Anishnaabemowin means “teaching” or “education.” In traditional Anishinaabeg culture, children were given teachings in the form of stories, and these stories were meant to elicit understanding about values and give the listener a new piece of wisdom about the world around them. Education was held in high regard, and for this reason it was entrusted to the Elders, the most highly regarded members of First Nations’ society.

Just as teachers and school boards are grappling with the new realities of COVID-19 in classrooms, parents have taken the issue of online versus in-person learning to courts. A series of recent court decisions has outlined a list of factors utilized in determining whether a child is to be enrolled in an in-person or online platform for the current academic year.

Greetings, fellow OBA Education Law Section members! My name is Jean-Frédéric – you can call me J-F – and I’m the chair of the section executive for the 2020-2021 membership year. This is my fourth year on this section’s executive, and I am very glad to continue working alongside a group of dedicated and engaged education law practitioners. Si cette année est votre première en tant que membre – bienvenue! Si vous êtes membre depuis longtemps, merci d’être resté parmi nous!

The closure of Ontario's schools due to COVD-19 has raised a number of legal considerations. The unique circumstance of learning and working remotely marks a significant change in how school boards, students, schools and educators function. The OBA Education Law Section's recent CPD examined some of these legal considerations and challenges.

Ontario's publicly-funded school boards have created a uniform and structured approach to identifying and accommodating students with exceptionalities, however, inconsistencies remain at the post-secondary level where students can be left feeling alone and dejected. Reasonable accommodation must be available at Ontario's post-secondary institutions as well to ensure equitable opportunities for students.

As of January 1, 2020, all Ontario school boards must have service animal policies that conform to PPM 163. These policies must recognize the support service animals provide to allow a person with a disability meaningful access to education, while also considering the health and safety concerns of other students, staff and parents.