The 2018 Annotated Ontario Education Act
By: Markle Schmid Munoz LLP, Alex Muñoz
ISBN/ISSN/Product Number: 978-0-7798-7905-2
Product Type: Book S.O. Annual/biannual/biennial
Anticip. Upkeep Cost: Annual volumes supplied on standing order subscription
Number of Pages: approx. 820 pages
Number of Volumes: 1 volume bound
Binding: softcover
Publication Date: 2017-09-29
Publisher: Carswell
Price: $158.00

Can We Help?

If you need assistance, please call us at

  • (416) 609-3800 (Toronto & international)
  • 1-800-387-5164 (toll free Canada & US)

We will be glad to assist you.

Description

Editor: Alex Muñoz

This publication includes commentary on significant case law, a table of concordance, plus statutes pertaining to family, municipal and administrative law

This invaluable guide is the perfect tool for all professionals who deal in matters touching on education law. The publication also includes commentary on significant case law, links to other sections of the Education Act, links to sections of other education-related statutes and regulations, a table of concordance as well as portions of statutes pertaining to family, municipal and administrative law.

What’s New:

  • The Ontario Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 has been amended by S.O. 2016, c. 33, s. 34; S.O. 2017, c. 3, s. 26; 2017, c. 8, Sched. 7; S.O. 2017, c. 10, Sched. 4, s. 3; S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 4, s. 13.
  • Chard v. Chard, 2016 CarswellOnt 18072, 2016 ONCJ 657, [2016) W.D.F.L. 6630, 273: The parents of a 12-year-old boy with an autism disorder and a seizure disorder were in dispute over his schooling. The father had sought an order that the child attend a school for special needs children; the child was being home-schooled by the mother on her own accord. The Education Act makes it mandatory for children from ages 6 to 18 years to attend elementary or secondary school unless they are excused under the provisions of the Act. The Court ruled that the best option, and the option in the child’s best interest, was for him to attend an elementary school as opposed to being home schooled.
  • Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association and OECTA, Re, 2016 CarswellOnt 19628: OECTA filed a policy grievance alleging that school board had failed to post long term occasional assignments once they became aware, or ought to have been aware, that they were being extended beyond 30 days". The arbitrator found that the hiring practices dictated that the Board must be guided by the number of school days identified in the notice of absence. There are different requirements depending on whether the notice requires an assignment of more or fewer than 30 school days. In the event that an initial period of absence is extended by a further notice of absence, this gives rise to a further assignment that commences on the school day immediately following the end of the initial assignment. The calculation of the number of school days identified in each notice of absence will be considered prospectively and without regard to any previous absences or assignments.
  • Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 12 v Toronto District School Board, 2017 CarswellOnt 990: The Ontario Secondary School Teachers'  Federation, District 12, filed a grievance alleging that the Toronto District School Board violated the collective agreement by not "pulling back" a teacher to her home school in May 2014. The grievor was a full-time teacher and had seniority.  The parties agreed that the process of returning a teacher to their home school lies in the hands of the principal.  The Arbitrator agreed with the School Board that the principal had not made an arbitrary decision when choosing not to pull back the grievor, but rather exercised her discretion in compliance with the correct principles to be considered.
CPD