CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
RS
Appellant
-and-
Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicators: Malcolm M. MacFarlane, Michelaine Lahaie, Christine Staley
Indexed As: RS v Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board
Introduction
1This is an Appeal of the Respondent’s decision to expel the Appellant’s son from all schools of the Respondent under section 311.7 of the Education Act, R.S.O.1990, c. E2, as amended, (the “Act”).
2The Appeal was filed May 13, 2025, with the primary issues being whether the Respondent considered the mitigating factors. An amended Form 4 was filed by the Appellant on August 11, 2024 (“Amended Appeal”). The Amended Appeal provided additional information, requested an additional remedy, and further clarified the mitigating factors and supporting information the Appellant was relying on.
3At an August 25, 2025 pre-hearing, the Appellant raised three preliminary issues:
a. The Appellant indicated that they were seeking information covered by the confidentiality provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“YCJA”) regarding potential Respondent student witnesses and that it may require time to obtain permission to access these materials.
b. The Appellant indicated that they may wish to subpoena an employee of the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board, specifically staff from the Board’s program for expelled pupils.
c. The Appellant indicated that there may be a request for intervenor status from the National Counsel of Canadian Muslims.
4The Respondent identified concerns regarding the preliminary issues raised by the Appellant. Specifically, the Respondent questioned the relevancy and necessity of YCJA information regarding the Respondent’s student witnesses to the proceeding, and the relevance and appropriateness of testimony from the Board staff in their program for expelled pupils which relates to a period after the expulsion hearing and therefore may arguably not be relevant to the expulsion decision. The Respondent also raised concerns regarding some of the allegations now found in the Amended Appeal, specifically references to self-defence.
5The Respondent indicated that it was their intention to bring a motion by September 16, 2025, addressing the above issues and seeking a ruling from the CFSRB.
6In a Pre-hearing Report dated August 27, 2025, the Respondent was directed to file a Motion on or before September 16, 2025, outlining their position and concerns regarding the preliminary issues described above. On or before September 30, 2025, the Appellant was directed to provide written submissions in response.
7On September 16, 2025, the Respondent filed a Motion for a request for particulars. It requested the provision of specific facts which support some of the allegations in the Amended Appeal, acknowledgement or denial of certain facts, as well as clarification of the specific allegations alleged.
8In addition to the formal Motion, the Respondent’s covering letter indicated that they would be opposing an intervenor and the inclusion of the youth records on grounds of relevancy if presented by the Appellant.
9In response, the Appellant submitted the Motion brought was not what was expected based on their notes from the August 25, 2025 pre-hearing and also not what was required by the CFSRB’s August 27, 2025 Pre-hearing Report. The Appellant further submitted that the particulars requested were both premature and improper. The Appellant seeks a full dismissal of the request for particulars and requests that the parties return to a pre-hearing for case management purposes to set dates, discuss the scope of issues and relevancy of certain evidence.
ISSUE
10Should the Motion for particulars brought by the Respondent be granted?
ANALYSIS
Request for Particulars
11In their Motion, the Respondent submits that in the interests of a fair and expeditious hearing as contemplated by Rule A3.1(a) of the Rules, the Respondent should be provided with sufficient particulars that they may understand the case that they have to meet and prepare accordingly; and that the issues are sufficiently and accurately defined so that the evidence and submissions of the parties may be directly related to the matter. The Respondent requests particulars surrounding specific allegations, acknowledgement of certain facts, and explanations as to relevancy of specific allegations outlined within the Amended Appeal.
12The Appellant submits that the request for particulars should be dismissed based on the following: a) it is premature; b) the Respondent already has the information they are requesting; c) the request is overly detailed; and d) there is no nexus between the particulars being sought and the issue under review.
Jurisprudence
13DB v Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board, 2019 HRTO 29, is instructive in looking at requests for particulars. Specifically, in reviewing the Appeal, a Tribunal must determine if there is sufficient narrative to permit the Respondent to know the case it must meet. A tribunal does not normally make an order for particulars until disclosure required by the tribunal’s rules has been completed.
14Further, in D.D v Children Services of the Waterloo Region, 2009 CFSRB 46, para 61 and 62 states “it is not necessary for the Appellants to particularize every detail in their Application to the Board or otherwise through a statement of particulars in order for there to be a fair hearing. Generally speaking, the pre-hearing will identify the issues. Within the framework of the issues, the parties should come prepared to lead evidence and respond.”
The Amended Appeal
15The Panel’s review of the Amended Appeal confirms that there is sufficient narrative to permit the Respondent to know the case it must meet. In fact, the Amended Appeal provides additional information and further details the specific issues in paragraph 22 and 23. The Amended Appeal is clear regarding the basis on which the Appeal is brought. As summarized in the Appellant’s response at paragraph 32, the Amended Appeal focuses on mitigating factors and the allegation that the Board: “failed to conduct an appropriate investigation into this matter that gave due regard to how their failure to address the pupil’s bullying, harassment and discrimination left him in a state of fear and hypervigilance.”
16At paragraph 8(a) of their Motion, the Respondent asks, “Does the Appellant acknowledge or deny that [the Pupil] committed the infractions for which he was expelled, as determined in the April 15, 2025 Statement of Decision of the DPCDSB Discipline Committee?” The Panel notes that it is the Respondent’s burden to establish on the merits whether the Pupil committed the infractions for which he was expelled. The Panel acknowledges that the parties may choose to submit an agreed statement of facts to the Panel addressing this issue, however we find that it is not appropriate for the Panel to order the Appellant to make the requested acknowledgement.
17With respect to paragraphs 8(b) to 8(h) of their Motion, the Panel agrees with the Appellant that the requested specifics are premature. At paragraph 19 of their response, the Appellant states that, “Appellant has already indicated we are making efforts to obtain police and potentially youth records which should clarify or confirm some of the questions surrounding the involvement of specific young people, past reports made to police etc.” The Panel finds that the Appellant is currently in the process of determining the particulars requested by the Respondent. The Panel further finds that once the Appellant has obtained these particulars, the requested particulars can be provided to the Respondent during the normal disclosure process and through detailed witness statements.
Preliminary issues
18The preliminary issues raised by the Appellant at the August 25, 2025 pre-hearing and listed at paragraph 2 above remain unaddressed by the Respondent’s motion. The Panel provides the following guidance for the Parties consideration.
19Regarding the Appellant’s expressed intention to seek information covered by the confidentiality provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“YCJA”) regarding potential Respondent student witnesses, the Panel notes that as it does not have jurisdiction over YCJA records, obtaining these records is not a matter upon which the CFSRB must rule. Should the Appellant be successful in obtaining these records, the Panel expects that these records would be included in the Appellant’s disclosure. The parties may make submissions to the Panel regarding the relevance and admissibility of these records and the Panel will rule at that time regarding whether to accept these records in evidence.
20Regarding the Appellant’s expressed intention to summons a member of the School Board, the Appellant may make such a request to the CFSRB and may obtain a Summons to Witness by contacting the Case Processing Officer. The party must arrange for personal service of the Summons on the witness and provide the witness with required mileage and conduct money as required by Tariff A of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Panel expects that the Appellant will submit a witness statement for the School Board member as part of the Appellant’s documents to be relied upon. Should the Respondent object to the witness, the parties may make submissions to the Panel regarding the relevance and admissibility of the witness and the Panel will rule at that time regarding whether to accept the testimony of the witness in evidence.
21Regarding the possibility of the National Council of Canadian Muslims or any other organization seeking Intervenor status, the Panel will seek submissions from the parties at that time. The Panel notes that there are no provisions in the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure for Intervenors in Expulsion hearings. The Panel also notes that under Rules 9.1 and 9.4, due to the nature of the proceedings, all CFSRB hearings are conducted in private and are confidential. The Panel will consider these factors in conjunction with the parties’ submissions in making a ruling should a request for intervenor status be forthcoming.
DIRECTIONS
22The Appellant is directed to provide the CFSRB and the Respondent with an update in writing by October 24, 2025 on the status of her request to obtain the youth files and the anticipated time needed to obtain these documents.
23A further one-hour pre-hearing on this matter is scheduled for November 10, 2025.
24At the November 10, 2025 pre-hearing, the parties are expected to be prepared to set dates for disclosure, submission of documents to be relied upon at the hearing, and witness statements or affidavits. The parties shall also be prepared to set a date for the hearing on the merits.
25The Panel expects that the hearing on the merits will proceed expeditiously following the November 10, 2025 pre-hearing. Under rule 34.1 of the CFSRB Rules, a hearing will begin no later than 30 days after the Appeal is received. The Appellant filed this Appeal in May 2025. There has been one adjournment and multiple pre-hearings to ensure the Appellant has access to justice. It is not certain whether the Appellant will obtain permission from the YCJA court to obtain the desired files, nor is it known how long it will take. It is unfair to leave all parties, particularly the student and student witnesses in a state of uncertainty for a lengthy period of time. It is the expectation of the Panel that the process of obtaining any YCJA files will proceed expeditiously and will not further delay the hearing on the merits. The Panel expects that hearing dates agreed to at the November 10, 2025 pre-hearing will be adhered to going forward.
ORDER
26The Respondent’s request for particulars is dismissed.
27As directed above, the Appellant will provide an update to the CFSRB and the Respondent by October 24, 2025 on the status of the request for information covered by the YCJA.
28Pursuant 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 Application, 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.
Dated, October 10, 2025.
Malcolm MacFarlane
Michelaine Lahaie
Christine Staley
Adjudicators