ML v. Conseil Scolaire Catholique de District des Grandes Rivières, 2024 ONCFSRB 83

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

ML Appellant

-and-

Conseil Scolaire Catholique de District des Grandes Rivières Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: August 2, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 83 Indexed As: ML v Conseil Scolaire Catholique de District des Grandes Rivières (Education Act s.311.7)

INTRODUCTION

1These are Appeals filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”), under section 311.7 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 (“the Education Act”).

2The CFSRB directed that the two Appeals would be joined and would proceed together. The CFSRB also directed the parties to make written submissions on a jurisdictional issue. Although the Appellant’s submissions were received after the deadline set by the CFSRB, I have nonetheless exercised my discretion to consider her submissions.

3This decision explains why the CFSRB is dismissing both Appeals.

ISSUE

4Does the provision of a trespass notice to students, FB and AB, and to their parents amount to an expulsion as defined by the Education Act?

RESULT

5The provision of a trespass notice does not amount to an expulsion under the Education Act. The Appeals are dismissed.

BACKGROUND

6In April 2024, the Porcupine Health Unit (“the local health unit”) directed the Respondent to suspend the Appellant’s children, FB and AB. The Appellant and the Respondent discussed the issue of FB and AB suspension via correspondence. The Appellant took the position that FB and AB should continue to attend school.

7On May 29, 2024, the local health unit issued an Order for Suspension from Attendance at School (“the Order”) regarding each of FB and AB.

8On May 29, 2024, in response to the Appellant’s insistence that FB and AB continue to attend school, the Respondent sent the Appellant a letter forbidding FB, AB and their parents from entering the Respondent’s premises.

9On May 31, 2024, the local health unit stayed its May 29, 2024 Orders regarding FB and AB. On June 2, 2024, the Respondent advised the Appellant that FB and AB could return to school on June 3, 2024.

ANALYSIS

10Although FB and AB were able to return to school in June 2024, the local health unit’s correspondence is clear that the suspensions have only been stayed and may be renewed when school resumes in September. Thus, the issue of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction regarding the children’s suspension is not moot.

11Under the Education Act, the CFSRB’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing appeals of a student’s expulsion by a publicly funded school board. The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals of suspensions.

12The Appellant submits that by issuing a trespass notice on May 29, 2024, the Respondent effectively expelled her two children. The difficulty with this argument is that the children’s suspension was not issued by the Respondent and is not disciplinary in nature. It was implemented as a public health measure at the direction of the local health unit under the Immunization of School Pupils Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.l.1 (“the Immunization Act”). The Respondent is required to follow orders from the local health unit. The trespass notice was issued only after the Appellant continued to send AB and FB to school in defiance of the local health unit’s Orders. The trespass notice was lifted promptly when the local health unit stayed the May 29, 2024 Order.

13The Appellant also argues that the local public health unit’s Orders were illegal and did not make sense. There is an appeal process available under the Immunization Act. It appears that the Appellant made some efforts in that respect but was not successful in overturning the Orders. While there may be further steps the Appellant can take regarding the Orders, the CFSRB is not the correct forum for those steps as the CFSRB cannot review orders from local health units even when those orders impact on a student’s ability to attend school.

14Further, the issue of whether the trespass notice is inconsistent with Regulation 474/000: Access to School Premises is not an issue over which the CFSRB has jurisdiction.

15To summarize, the children were not expelled but were suspended. The suspension resulted from Orders of the local health unit pursuant to the Immunization Act. The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear appeals of suspensions pursuant to the Immunization Act.

16For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the trespass notice does not amount to an expulsion under the Education Act. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to hear the Appeals. Accordingly, the Appeals must be dismissed.

ORDER

17The Appeals are dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

18Pursuant 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 these Appeals with anyone including through the media or on-line. 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.