CP v. Waterloo Region District School Board, 2024 CFSRB 103

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CP Appellant

-and-

Waterloo Region District School Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: October 01, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 103 Indexed As: CP v Waterloo Region District School Board (Education Act s.311.7)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CP, Appellant BP, Representative

Waterloo Region District School Board, Respondent Andi Theissen-Regehr, Representative

Introduction

1This is an Appeal filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) regarding the revocation of the Appellant’s child, PD’s, registration with the Respondent.

2There is a dispute between the parties as to whether PD has been expelled by the Respondent and thus whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction under section 311.7 of the Education Act, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”) to hear the Appeal.

background

3PD enrolled in one of the Respondent’s schools as a non-resident international student. PD’s enrollment was governed by an International Student Agreement (“the ISA”) entered into by the parties.

4On the final day of the 2023/2024 school year, the Respondent sent PD a letter stating that his registration as a student with the Respondent was revoked effective immediately. This meant he would not be able to attend any of the Respondent’s schools in the 2024/2025 school year. The letter stated that PD’s “continued non-attendance in scheduled classes” violated clauses in the ISA requiring the student to comply with all policies of the Respondent including those related to attendance.

issues

5Has PD been expelled by the Respondent?

result

6I find that PD has not been expelled by the Respondent. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to hear the Appeal and the Appeal must be dismissed.

analysis

7The CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear expulsion appeals comes from s.311.7 of the Act. The key question before me, therefore, is whether s.311.7 of the Act covers a situation where a non-resident international student’s registration is revoked due to an alleged violation of the ISA governing that student’s registration.

8The Appellant relies on DN v. Toronto District School Board, 2017 CFSRB 27 (“DN”) in support of the argument that PD has experienced a “de facto expulsion.” In DN, the CFSRB took jurisdiction on the basis that the student had been “effectively expelled” despite the lack of a formal expulsion decision.

9In contrast, the Respondent submits that PD was dismissed from the Respondent’s International Student Program due to a violation of the ISA. He was not “suspended, expelled or disciplined under the Education Act and Regulations.”

10In my view, the facts of DN are quite different than this case. In DN, the student was excluded from all schools of a school board due to allegations of sexual assault and was referred to the program for expelled and suspended students. Sexual assault is one of the actions for which section 310(1) of the Act requires a suspension and possible expulsion. Further, the referral of the student in DN to the program for expelled and suspended students supported the conclusion that he had been expelled.

11In this case, the revocation of PD’s registration flowed from excessive absenteeism in breach of the ISA. Although the parties disagree on how many days PD was absent during the 2023/2024 school year, there is no dispute that PD was absent for a significant number of school days. The Appellant says PD was absent for 61 days and that notes explaining the absences were always submitted. The Respondent says that PD was absent for at least 122 days and notes were not always provided. If I accept the Appellant’s figures, PD missed 32% of the 2023/2024 school year.

12Absenteeism is not listed in either section 306(1) or 310(1) of the Act as an activity that permits or requires suspension and possible expulsion of a student. The revocation of PD’s registration was not disciplinary in nature and thus cannot be characterized as an expulsion.

Conclusion

13For the reasons set out above, I conclude that section 311.7 of the Act does not apply to PD’s situation. In other words, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review such a dismissal. Accordingly, the Appeal must be dismissed.

order

14The Appeal is dismissed.

confidentiality order

15Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this Appeal with anyone, including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.