Articles 2020

On June 27, 2017, the Ontario Ombudsman, Paul Dubé, released his annual report. Among the stories and statistics in the report are three sections related specifically to education in Ontario.

In E.T. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to issue a declaration as to parental authority, dismissed the applicant’s request for an order of accommodation, and found it had no jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s claim of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a rare decision issued from the bench on the same day that the case was heard, overturned the BC Court of Appeal concluding that Bill 22, which limited the right to bargain class size and composition, violated teachers' freedom of association.

The Divisional Court in Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Children and Youth Services) recently affirmed that an employer’s duty to accommodate does not extend to allowing an employee not to work.

In the recent OBA Program "Teachable Moments - Top Issues in Regulatory Proceedings involving Educators", the expert panel considered reporting requirements, challenges during investigations, and fair process before discipline and fitness to practice committees, as well as the impact of Bill 37, Protecting Students Act, 2016.

On November 15, 2016, Bill 37, Protecting Students Act, 2016, passed Third Reading in the Ontario legislature. These amendments follow a 2012 report of Justice Patrick Lesage, titled “Review of the Ontario College of Teachers Intake, Investigation and Discipline Procedures and Outcomes, and the Dispute Resolution Program.”

In Ottawa-Carleton District School Board v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, a policy grievance commenced by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation was allowed on the basis that the School Board had breached its duty under the collective agreement when it failed to staff its classrooms with the requisite number of teaching positions.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently added some complexity to the issue of deliberative secrecy and the confidential nature of in camera meetings.

In two recent decisions, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario ruled that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regime did not prevent parts of a student’s Ontario Student Record from being used in Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario proceedings without a student’s or parent’s consent, despite confidentiality provisions in the Education Act.