Editor: W. Alejandro (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. It 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.
New in this edition
- The Ontario Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 has been amended by 2018, c. 12, Sched. 1, s. 22; 2019, c. 3, Sched. 2; 2019, c. 4, Sched. 3, ss. 4, 5; 2019, c. 7, Sched. 17, s. 61, Sched. 20 [Sched. 17, s. 61 not in force at date of publication; Sched. 20, s. 1 to come into force September 1, 2019.]; 2019, c. 9, Sched. 4 [ss. 2-5, 7 to come into force November 1, 2019]
- R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10: The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the acquittal of a high school teacher who used a camera pen to surreptitiously film female students’ bodies while at school. The Supreme Court recognized that a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy depends on the purpose for which the information is collected. Although a person may expect to be recorded or observed in certain types of situations while in public, in this case, students had a reasonable expectation of privacy and Jarvis infringed on their sexual integrity by secretly recording images of them. The Court noted that given a teacher’s role, a student may reasonably have an enhanced expectation that a teacher will respect their privacy, especially in relation to conduct that is not necessary to maintain a safe school environment.
- Toronto Catholic District School Board, MO-3626-F: Pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection Act (MFIPPA), a request was made to the Toronto Catholic District School Board for records relating to an investigation. The Board only offered partial access to the records. Although the MFIPPA provides individuals with the right to access their personal information which is held by the institution, there can be exemptions. In this instance, the adjudicator found that disclosure of some information could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety or health of an individual. The School Board’s decision was partially upheld.
- BB v Thames Valley District School Board, 2018 HRTO 536: After the Applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in an Application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”), a settlement was reached and a Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) was signed by both parties. The Applicant then filed an Application alleging a Contravention of the MOS. The HRTO determined that the MOS, which guaranteed a shared Educational Assistant in the Applicant’s classroom, full-time adult supervision while in the classroom, and one-on-one supervision outside the classroom, was contravened by the Board and awarded damages. The Principal’s request that the student stay home due to the school’s inability to guarantee one-on-one supervision outside the classroom constituted objective harm to the student insofar as the student missed days of school and educational opportunities.