TM v. Hamilton Wentworth District School Board, 2025 CFSRB 147

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

TM

Appellant

-and-

Hamilton Wentworth District School Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane

Date: October 23, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 147

Indexed As: TM v Hamilton Wentworth District School Board

(Education Act s.311.7)

APPEARANCES

TM, Appellant

Self-represented

Hamilton Wentworth District School Board, Respondent

Christoper Dilts, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Appeal to the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 311.7 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 (the “Act”), of the decision of the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board (“School Board”) to expel a 16-year-old Pupil from his own School.

2The Pupil was attending grade 10 at a secondary school (“School”) within the School Board at the time the decision was made to expel him. The Respondent alleges that on March 5, 2025, the Pupil went to a School washroom after being texted by Student A. Student A was engaged in a bullying incident against a grade 9 Student B. The Pupil texted Student C to also come to the washroom. When Student C arrived, the Pupil gave Student C his phone and asked him to video the incident. The video showed Student A forcing Student B’s head into a toilet and flushing the toilet. Student C returned the phone to the Pupil and the Pupil subsequently posted the video to a group chat, following which the video went viral.

3On March 6, 2025, the School Principal (“Principal”) formally issued a 20-day suspension decision to the Pupil for having allegedly participated in an assault and for distributing a video of the assault. Following an investigation into the incident, the Principal recommended expulsion from all schools of the Board.

4On April 8, 2025, the School Board held an expulsion hearing and determined that the Pupil should be expelled from his own School. In a letter to the Appellant, dated April 11, 2025, the Board advised the Appellant that the Pupil was expelled from his own School due to “Serious violations of the Standards of Behaviour in the Code of Conduct.”

5Following his suspension on March 6, 2025, the Pupil was briefly enrolled in the Board’s Phoenix program for suspended students. In mid-April, following the Board’s expulsion hearing, the Pupil was transferred to another school of the Board where he remained placed throughout the remainder of the 2024-2025 school year and to which he returned in September 2025 pending the outcome of this expulsion hearing.

6The Appellant is the Pupil’s mother. The Appellant sought to have the School Board’s April 28, 2025 decision to expel the Pupil from his own School overturned and have the Pupil return to the School. The Appellant’s position is that the Pupil’s involvement in the March 5, 2025 incident does not fall within the categories of activities that may lead to an expulsion in the Board’s Policy or the Act; progressive discipline was not used; mitigating circumstances were not properly considered; and the expulsion is overly punitive and negatively impacts the Pupil’s education and high school career.

7The School Board’s position is that the expulsion decision arising from the incident should be upheld. It maintains that the Pupil’s conduct falls under Section 310(1)8 of the Act as, “Any other activity that, under a policy of a board, is an activity for which a principal must suspend a pupil and, therefore in accordance with this Part, conduct an investigation to determine whether to recommend to the board that the pupil be expelled.” Specifically, the Board argues that the Pupil engaged in bullying and cyberbullying in violation of the Board’s Code of Conduct by participating in a bullying incident and by posting the video of the incident to a group chat. The School Board submits that while it has used progressive discipline with the Pupil in regard to previous incidents, the seriousness of this incident and the negative impact on the School climate and the risk both to the victim, who continues to be a student at the School, and the risk to the Pupil of retaliation warrants the serious consequence of expulsion from the Pupil’s own School, The School Board further submits that it has considered all relevant mitigating circumstances, and that any mitigating circumstances do not mitigate against the seriousness of the Pupil’s behaviour. The School Board argues that the Pupil’s presence at his own School poses a risk to the physical and mental well-being of the victim and the School community and that the appropriate progressive discipline approach is an expulsion from the Pupil’s own School.

8The CFSRB heard the Appeal on September 23, 2025.

DECISION

9On October 1, 2025, the CFSRB issued the following Order:

The CFSRB confirms the School Board’s decision dated April 11, 2025, to expel the Pupil from his own School.

Reasons for the Order will follow in a written decision within 30 days of the completion of the hearing.

10Below are the reasons for the CFSRB’s decision.

ISSUES

11The issues central to this Appeal are as follows:

1. What activities led to the Pupil’s expulsion?

2. Are there any factors in section 2 of Ontario Regulation 472/07 (the “Regulation”) that mitigate against the decision to expel the Pupil?

3. Are there any factors in section 3 of Ontario Regulation 472/07 that mitigate the seriousness of the activities for which the Pupil was expelled?

ANALYSIS

12This Hearing by the CFSRB is a new hearing. The parties were given a full opportunity to present their case following the School Board’s expulsion hearing. As the Appellant was self-represented, I was careful to fully explain the hearing process and ensure that the Appellant understood the process and how to present her evidence. I considered the witness testimony, documents, and other material (i.e., video recordings and photographs) accepted into evidence at the September 2025 Hearing.

13Two witnesses testified for the Respondent. Witnesses for the Respondent included School Principal G.C. and T.R. who is the mother of Student B the victim of the assault.

14The Appellant testified and presented documentary evidence. The Appellant did not call any witnesses.

15Evidence presented by the Respondent included a video of the assault on Student B, pictures from the School hallway cameras, and documentary evidence including a copy of the Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet dated March 19 2025 outlining the Pupil’s academic and discipline history at the School as well as progressive discipline. The Appellant entered into evidence several documents including copies of Board policy documents and a “Champion Award” earned by the Pupil.

16Both parties made oral submissions at the conclusion of the Hearing. The Respondent referred to cases in support of their position that the distribution of the assault video was an act that causes serious harm. The Appellant had an opportunity to submit cases in support of their arguments following the hearing, but did not do so. I considered the Respondent’s cases in reaching my decision, but did not find they were of significant relevance to the facts of this hearing as while they related to cyberbullying, the issues they addressed involved distribution of intimate images without permission. Further, each Appeal is de novo, with the facts of each case being separate and distinct, and therefore other CFSRB decisions are not binding.

1. What activities led to the Pupil’s expulsion?

17Under section 310(1) of the Act, a Principal shall suspend a pupil if they believe that the pupil has engaged in any one of several activities listed in that subsection, at school or a school-related activity or in other circumstances where engaging in the activity will have an impact on the school climate. The list of activities includes, at subsection 310(1)8, “Any other activity that, under a policy of a board, is an activity for which a principal must suspend a pupil and, therefore in accordance with this Part, conduct an investigation to determine whether to recommend to the board that the pupil be expelled.”

18The School Board’s Code of Conduct Policy sets out expectations related to student behaviours. As part of that policy, members of the school community must not “Engage in any bullying behaviours including cyberbullying.”

19The Pupil’s expulsion stems from one incident in which he was alleged to have been a party to Student A’s bullying and assault on Student B, and in which the Pupil actively participated in videoing this assault and then distributed the video to a group chat.

March 5, 2025 Incident leading to Suspension and Expulsion from Own School

Did the Pupil participate in an incident of bullying and assault on Student B and post a video of the assault?

20According to Part II of the Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet dated March 19, 2025, during an interview with the Appellant, “Mom shared that [the Pupil] admitted to passing his phone to Student C to videotape the incident. He told his mom that Student A texted him to come to the washroom. [The Pupil’s] mother also shared that [the Pupil] shared the video footage with Student A and a group chat of his friends.” Principal G.C. confirmed the accuracy of this information and the Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet during his testimony. The Tracking and Inquiry Sheet also confirms that the Pupil independently confirmed being called to and going to the washroom by Student A and providing his phone to Student C to video the assault. The Pupil admits to having posted the video of the assault to a group chat.

21The Appellant did not call any evidence to contradict the above facts. Given the admissions by the Pupil as documented in the Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet and the Principal’s testimony. I find that the Pupil did participate in an incident of bullying and assault, and did post a video of the assault which subsequently went viral causing the victim significant embarrassment and negatively affecting the School climate. While the evidence is that the Pupil did not actively participate in the assault, I note that the Pupil did not take any steps to intervene in the assault or to seek assistance for the victim from School authorities.

22More serious and damaging is the Pupil’s decision to upload the video to a group chat. The Principal testified that this video had a significant impact on both the psychological wellbeing of the victim and on the School environment and led to concerns being expressed by parents of incoming grade 9 students regarding the safety of the School. The Principal testified in cross examination that the School Board does have clear policies regarding cyberbullying and that these policies are reviewed in School assemblies. While I will address this issue further below in discussing mitigating circumstances, the Principal testified that he believed that even if the Pupil didn’t intend for or anticipate that the posted video would go viral, he was sufficiently aware of the potential for material posted online to be shared and Board policies regarding cyberbullying to appreciate that his actions in posting the video were inappropriate.

23With regard to the impact of the Pupil’s action on the victim and on the School environment, the Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet states that, “Student B is in fear of him [the Pupil], Student B feels fearful and humiliated”, Student B was so impacted by the distributed video that he left the community for a period of time. Even outside of the community the victim was approached and asked if he was the person in the video. Student B has recently returned to the School after a period of absence due to the psychological impact of the assault and the video. He is doing well in his adjustment to the school, but his mother, T.R., testified that his adjustment is fragile and that she would have serious concerns regarding the impact on her son if the Pupil returned to the School. The Principal also testified that many teachers have reported to him that they had pupils show them the video and express concerns regarding safety in the School. He further testified that he has spoken with and attempted to reassure several parents who are also concerned regarding School safety.

24I find that the Pupil did engage in behaviour that falls within Section 310(1)8 of the Act and the Board’s Code of Conduct in that the Pupil did participate in bullying and cyberbullying contrary to the Board’s Code of Conduct. I find that the Respondent has met its burden of establishing that the Pupil engaged in bullying and cyberbullying under Section 310(1)8 of the act and therefore expulsion from the Pupil’s own School is an appropriate progressive discipline approach.

25While I have found that the Pupil did engage in behaviours that constitute infractions under section 310(1)8 serious enough to warrant expulsion, the Act also requires that I consider the “mitigating factors” and “other factors” listed in sections 2 and 3, respectively, of Ontario Regulation 472/07 (the “Regulation”).

2. Are there any factors in [section 2](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-472-07/latest/o-reg-472-07.html) of the [Regulation](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-472-07/latest/o-reg-472-07.html) that mitigate against the decision to expel the Pupil?

26Section 2 of the Regulation details the three mitigating factors that must be considered when a pupil is expelled. I find that none of the three factors under section 2 apply to the Pupil.

Can the Pupil control his behaviour?

27In his testimony, the Principal stated that he believes that the Pupil can control his behaviour. The Principal testified that in the past the Pupil has removed himself from situations where his peers’ inappropriate conduct was escalating, and he has appropriately followed direction from School staff when spoken with regarding issues such as loitering in the halls. In these situations, the Pupil has proceeded to his class as directed even when peers were not complying with staff instructions. Further, the Principal stated that he was not aware of any medical or other issues that would impair the Pupil’s ability to control his behaviour. The Principal’s evidence regarding the Pupil’s ability to control his behaviour was not challenged by the Appellant during cross examination, and the Appellant led no evidence to suggest that the Pupil was not able to control his behaviour. In fact, the Appellant testified that she believed the Pupil was able to control his behaviour, and for that reason Student B would not be at risk of assault from the Pupil if the Pupil was permitted to return to the School. The Appellant further emphasized in her testimony that the Pupil’s normal behaviour was respectful and that he was not a problem student.

28Given the above, I find that the Pupil has the ability to control his behaviour. I do not find this to be a mitigating factor for the Pupil.

Can the Pupil understand the foreseeable consequences of his behaviour?

29In the Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry sheet, the Principal writes that, “[The Pupil] has the ability to understand consequences of his behavior.” In his testimony, the Principal confirmed that he believed the Pupil had the ability to understand the foreseeable consequences of his behaviour. The Principal noted that in discussions with the Pupil, the Pupil was able to identify that the victim would be embarrassed by the posting of this video.

30The Appellant did not call any evidence to suggest that the Pupil does not have the ability to understand the foreseeable consequences of his behaviour. However, in her cross examination of the Principal, the Appellant did raise questions as to whether the Pupil could have foreseen that the video would have gone viral, and that the Pupil’s action would lead to expulsion and a change of schools and a loss of connection to peers he had attended School with since childhood. The Appellant questioned whether, given the level of cognitive maturity of a typical adolescent, any student would be able to fully appreciate the foreseeable consequences of the Pupil’s actions.

31In reply to these questions, the Principal noted that students are educated through assemblies and other means regarding cyberbullying and the risks and permanence of materials posted online. The Principal stated that most, if not all, students are aware of what a viral video is, and the consequences of such videos. The Principal noted that the Pupil demonstrated awareness during interviews that posting such a video would be embarrassing to the victim. Further, in the Appellant’s testimony during her cross examination she acknowledged that the Pupil does use video platforms and does understand the nature of a viral video.

32While the Pupil may not have fully foreseen the seriousness of the consequences that would flow from his actions, I find that the Pupil would have clearly been aware that posting a video of an assault would be embarrassing to the victim and contrary to the Board’s Code of Conduct regarding cyberbullying.

33Given the above, I find no basis to believe that the Pupil did not have the ability to understand the foreseeable consequences of his behaviour. For this reason, I do not find this to be a mitigating factor for the Pupil.

Does the Pupil’s continuing presence in the School create an unacceptable risk to the safety of others?

34In the Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet he writes that, “Student B feels fearful and humiliated and has expressed concern about students and staff talking about the incident and talking to him directly about it. As a result, Student B is not yet returning to School. Student B's family continues to worry about their child's safety. Immediately after the incident, Student B was not comfortable remaining in the [community]. The videos of the assaults were shared widely through social media. As a result, the students, staff, and families have expressed concern around the safety at [the School]. Further, Grade 8 students who plan to come to [the School] in September have expressed fear of attending the school.”

35In her testimony, T.R., Student B’s mother, stated that he was out of School for six weeks following the assault and that he continues to struggle with anxiety following the assault and is very self conscious and “not himself.” He is quieter and more withdrawn. When Student B was told that there was a possibility of the Pupil returning to the School, he was “in shock.” T.R. testified that both Student B and his family would seriously consider a change of schools for Student B should the Pupil return to the School even though this would be disruptive for Student B and for his family.

36In her cross examination of T.R., the Appellant explored whether T.R. was aware of the Pupil’s offer to apologize to Student B, and whether Student B might be open to any restorative justice approaches. The Appellant also questioned whether T.R. was aware that the Pupil was not engaged in the actual assault on Student B. T.R. testified that she believed all the students involved are equally accountable. She was not aware of any offer of an apology, but stated that neither she nor Student B were open to any restorative justice approaches. T.R. testified that she could not see any prospect for her son and the Pupil coexisting at the School.

37Further to the above, during his testimony the Principal expressed concerns regarding retaliation against the Pupil by other students in the School for his participation in the assault on a grade 9 student. The Principal testified that several senior students have expressed disgust regarding the event, and that the School would have concerns regarding the risk to the Pupil’s safety should he return to the School.

38Based on the above testimony, I find that should the Pupil return to his own School, there would be an unacceptable risk to the safety of others and to the Pupil. While the Pupil may not present a physical risk to the safety of others given that he did not actively assault Student B, I find that the Pupil’s presence in the School would present an unacceptable risk to the psychological safety of Student B. For the above reasons I find that this is not a mitigating factor for the Pupil.

39Having found that none of the factors in section 2 of the Regulation mitigate against the decision to expel the Pupil, I now consider the factors set out in section 3 of the Regulation.

3. Are there any factors in [section 3](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-472-07/latest/o-reg-472-07.html) of the [Regulation](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-472-07/latest/o-reg-472-07.html) that mitigate the seriousness of the activities for which the Pupil was expelled?

40Under section 3 of the Regulation, six additional factors must be considered “if they would mitigate the seriousness of the activity for which the pupil may be or is being suspended or expelled”. Below I consider each of the six factors.

The Pupil’s history

41The Pupil has been in the same School Board all his life, progressing from elementary school to the current secondary School with the same peers. The Pupil is described as a capable student with a total of twelve credits who is progressing satisfactorily toward graduation. The Pupil has a history of fourteen unexplained absences, 102 Lates and 1 Late that was 30 minutes or longer during the 2024 school year. According to the Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet, the Student has one previous three-day suspension in October 2024 for fighting off site. The Pupil initiated a fight at lunch with another student. The two boys exchanged harsh words through social media. The Pupil’s friends encouraged him to start a fight. The Pupil admits to starting the fight and shared he did it because his friends told him to. According to the Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet progressive discipline during the 2024-2025 school year has included calls and meetings with the Pupil and the Pupil’s parents, guidance support, and the one three-day school suspension.

42The most significant factor in the Pupil’s history is that the Pupil and his family have been dealing with a serious and terminal illness on the part of the Pupil’s mother, the Appellant. It is the Appellant’s position that the School Board did not properly consider this stress as a mitigating factor in deciding to expel the Pupil. The Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet makes no mention of the Appellant’s illness and no assessment of the impact of this stress on the Pupil. The Principal did indicate that the School was aware of the Appellant’s illness and the School did offer the Pupil supports to assist him with this stress, however the Pupil did not accept the support. In her testimony, the Appellant indicated that she was not sure exactly how the Pupil’s stress regarding her illness would impact his ability to make good decisions, but that it is “hard to watch your mother dying.”

43I do not discount the likelihood that the Appellant’s illness has had a significant impact on the Pupil. However, I have no evidence before me to indicate what that impact was, or how that impact might have led to the Pupil participating in an assault and deciding to upload a video to a group chat. In the absence of any concrete evidence establishing a connection between the family stress the Pupil is experiencing and the Pupil’s actions during the March 5, 2025 incident that led to his expulsion, I find that the Pupil’s history is not a factor that mitigates against the decision to expel the Pupil.

Was a progressive discipline approach used with the Pupil?

44The Principal’s Tracking and Inquiry Sheet describes several efforts at progressive discipline to assist the Pupil. These include Level 1 interventions such as counselling support for a timetable change to repeat Grade 10 Math Second Semester, interventions to address the Pupil consistently being late for class, addressing bathroom congregation through a warning of possible future suspension and conversations with the Appellant about this issue, and an email to teachers providing an update on the mother’s medical condition. Level 2 intervention was the three-day suspension for fighting off site in October 2024.

45In general, the evidence does not show that the Pupil is a problem student who has required extensive progressive discipline interventions. This is a perspective strongly brought forth in the Appellant’s testimony where she argued that the Pupil can control his behaviour and therefore does not present a risk to Student B or to other students in the school community. Despite this argument, I note that the Pupil does have a history of one physical altercation and appears to have some difficulty resisting peer pressure to engage in inappropriate peer interactions.

46With regard to the issue of progressive discipline, the Respondent argues and the Principal testified that he believes that the March 5, 2025 incident involving the Pupil’s participation in an assault on another student and the Pupil’s actions in uploading the video of this assault to a group chat are sufficiently severe, and resulted in sufficient concerns for the safety and wellbeing of others in the School community, that a lesser progressive discipline approach is not appropriate and that expulsion of the Pupil is the only way to ensure a safe School environment and experience for the victim and the other students at the School.

47After considering the above evidence and arguments, I find that a progressive discipline approach appropriate to the circumstances was used and that the consequence of an expulsion from the Pupil’s own School is appropriate in this situation. A lack of progressive discipline is not a factor that mitigates the seriousness of the activities for which the Pupil was expelled.

Whether the activity for which the pupil may be or is being suspended or expelled was related to any harassment of the pupil because of his race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation or to any other harassment.

48No evidence was presented during the hearing to indicate that the Pupil was being harassed, and the Appellant in her testimony acknowledged that no harassment of the Pupil had occurred. For this reason, I find that this factor does not mitigate against the seriousness of the Pupil’s activities.

How the suspension or expulsion would affect the Pupil’s ongoing education

49I considered how the expulsion would affect the Pupil’s ongoing education. Testimony from the Appellant indicated that the Pupil grew up attending school with the same peer group and that the Pupil was missing his connection to his peers and was experiencing some difficulty adjusting to his new school. Despite these concerns, the Appellant testified that the Pupil was doing “not too badly” in his new school and was “holding his own” at the new school. The principal testified that the Pupil is adjusting to his new school and progressing appropriately academically, and the Board is providing supports to the Pupil to assist him in navigating the transition to the new school. While attending the new school does involve some increased travel for the Pupil, the Board is providing transportation.

50The Appellant did raise perceived concerns on the part of the family with arranging co-op placements for the Pupil through the new school. The concern was that it may be difficult for the Pupil to travel between the new school and his home community where the co-op placements might take place. The Respondent clarified that the Board and the new school can arrange co-op placements for the Pupil in his home community and therefore transportation should not be an issue. Following this discussion the parties stipulated that co-op placements were not an issue.

51For the above reasons, I find that the impact of the expulsion from his own School on the Pupil’s ongoing education is minimal and does not mitigate the seriousness of the activity for which the pupil may be or is being suspended or expelled.

The age of the Pupil

52The Pupil is 16 years old. While the Appellant argues that most 16-year-olds may not fully foresee the possible consequences of the Pupil’s actions, I have addressed this argument above at paragraph 31 and will not repeat the analysis here. There was no other evidence adduced by either party to suggest that the age of the Pupil mitigates the seriousness of the activities for which he was expelled. I therefore find that the age of the Pupil does not mitigate the seriousness of the activities for which he was expelled.

Considerations in the case of a pupil for whom an Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) has been developed.

53The Pupil does not have an IEP; therefore, this is not a mitigating factor that I need to consider under Section 3(6) i to iii of Regulation 472/07.

CONCLUSION

54This was a difficult matter to adjudicate in the context of the Appellant’s illness. I empathize with the entire family in this matter and was moved by the Appellant’s dedication to ensuring the best possible outcome for her son to ensure his future education and wellbeing. I respect the Appellant’s diligence in presenting her case despite the challenges of her illness and I wish to note that she did an excellent job in advocating for the Pupil.

55Having found that the Pupil did engage in activities that under section 310(1)8 of the Act and the School Board’s Code of Conduct, the School was mandated to suspend the Pupil, with a possibility of expulsion.

56Considering the evidence presented during the hearing, I find that the expulsion was justified.

57I considered the three mitigating factors under section 2 of the Regulation and found that none applied in this Appeal.

58I considered the other relevant factors under section 3 of the Regulation and found that while there were elements raised regarding the Pupil’s history and progressive discipline that had merit, these factors did not mitigate the seriousness of the activities for which the Pupil was expelled.

59For the reasons above, and further to the CFSRB’s Order dated October 1, 2025, the CFSRB confirms the expulsion of the Pupil from his own School.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

60Pursuant 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.