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 2017, c. 20, Sched. 8, s. 79; 2017, c. 26, Sched. 1, s. 30; 2017, c. 34, Sched. 12, s. 1-10; 2018, c. 1, s. 8; 2018, c. 8, Sched. 9.
- R. v. Jarvis, 2017 CarswellOnt 15528, 2017 ONCA 778: The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal of a high school teacher who secretly filmed female students’ chests and cleavage. The trial judge found that the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy at school, but was not convinced that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the videos were made for a sexual purpose. The Court of Appeal did find that the videos were made for a sexual purpose, but that the students did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy at school. Instead, the majority of the Court of Appeal determined that the students clearly expected that a teacher would not secretly film them for a sexual purpose at school. The expectation arises from the nature of the relationship between student and teacher, rather than the expectation of privacy. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
- E.T. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2017 CarswellOnt 18540, 2017 ONCA 893: A father wanted his children exempted from religious teachings because he did not want his children to be exposed to certain types of subject matter. The appellant was unhappy with the school board’s offer to resolve the father’s request. He subsequently filed a human rights application against the school board under the ground of religious discrimination. The appellant claimed that the school board’s policies violated his religious beliefs but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by concluding that the Appellant did not provide any evidence that the students’ and parent’s religious belief were infringed upon. In addition, the Appellant could not provide any examples where his children were forced to act against their religion by teachers or other school staff.
- U.M. v. York Region District School Board,  O.H.R.T.D. No. 1730: The father of two students in Special Education alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate his children’s respective disabilities under the Human Rights Code (“Code”). The Tribunal was asked to decide whether or not the School Board had failed to provide “meaningful access” because it did not implement all of the father’s wishes. The Tribunal found that there was no discrimination under the Code because a school board is required to offer reasonable and appropriate accommodations, not “perfect accommodations”. The Tribunal held that the school board cooperated with the father and accommodated his requests by varying the student’s attendance; changing their placement from special education classes to regular classes; substituting the EAs working with the children; providing EA support during the summer camp program; and by allowing the father a significant level of involvement. The Tribunal held that parents do not have the “absolute power” or “control” to make all the decisions about education, nor are the school boards.