6 total
Expulsion appeal resolved after school board withdrew expulsion; Board lacked jurisdiction to review preceding suspension.
The appellants appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel a pupil under section 311.7 of the Education Act.
Prior to the hearing on the merits, the respondent withdrew the expulsion, allowing the pupil to return to school immediately.
The appellants sought to proceed with a review of the preceding 20-day suspension, but the Child and Family Services Review Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review school suspensions.
The Board ordered the expulsion quashed and the pupil reinstated.
Catholic school board policy requiring student trustees to be Roman Catholic struck down as unconstitutional.
The applicant, a non-Catholic student at a Catholic high school, challenged a school board policy requiring student trustees to be Roman Catholic.
The Divisional Court held that the policy was not protected by the denominational school rights in s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because the role of student trustee did not exist at Confederation and does not involve governance.
The court found the policy violated the equality rights of non-Catholic students under s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.
Furthermore, the policy was found to be ultra vires the school board as it conflicted with provincial regulations.
The policy was quashed.
Motion for particulars granted in part to require disclosure of tasks and hours for management labour.
The appellant, Association of Ontario Chicken Processors, brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondent, Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission, to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for the annual hatching egg producer hours considered in the cost of production formula.
The respondent argued the issue of all production hours was not properly before the Tribunal and that the motion was an improper attempt to request new evidence.
The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to order particulars related to management labour hours, which were properly under appeal, but not production labour hours.
The motion was granted in part, ordering the respondent to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for management hours.
School expulsion quashed as the board failed to prove the alleged sexual assault occurred.
The appellant appealed her son's expulsion from school by the respondent school board.
The student was expelled for allegedly committing a sexual assault against another student in the school library.
The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a hearing de novo to determine if the incident occurred.
Assessing the credibility of the complainant and the student, the Board found the complainant's evidence inconsistent and contradicted by her own social media messages.
The Board concluded the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the sexual assault occurred, quashed the expulsion, and ordered the student's record expunged.
Motion for interlocutory injunction to re-open closed school pending judicial review dismissed.
The applicants, students of a recently closed Catholic elementary school, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to require the respondent school board to re-open the school pending their application for judicial review.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants would not suffer irreparable harm from the inconvenience and disruption of relocating to new schools.
Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the school had already been closed, teachers and students reassigned, and there was insufficient time to reverse the process before the start of the school year.
Tribunal ordered applicants in a human rights complaint to produce school records, CAS files, and particulars.
The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board on the basis of race and related grounds.
The respondent requested an order for the production of arguably relevant documents, including the applicants' Ontario School Records (OSRs), Children's Aid Society (CAS) files, and a kinship agreement, as well as a request for particulars regarding the allegations.
The Tribunal granted the respondent's requests, ordering the applicants to either consent to the disclosure of their OSRs or explain why their application should not be dismissed as an abuse of process.
The Tribunal also ordered the production of specific portions of the CAS file and the kinship agreement, and directed the applicants to provide the requested particulars to enable the respondent to know the case it has to meet.
