CITATION: Grewal, Parmestal v. Peel District School Board, 2012 ONSC 83
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 530/11
DATE: 20120103
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, PEPALL AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
ASHOAK GREWAL and KATARINA PARMESTAL Applicants
– and –
PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Respondent
Richard H. Parker, Q.C., for the Applicants
Roy C. Filion, Q.C., and Carol S. Nielsen for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: January 3, 2012
ASTON J. (orally)
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the School Board expressed in its letter to the parents dated October 24, 2011. That letter indicated that the Board decided it was not in the best interests of the two children, Savannah and Jordan, to return to Oscar Peterson Public School because of four recent offensive and threatening emails sent to the father from a person or persons who had access to computers within the school. The emails also threatened the children themselves. The Board’s letter conveyed a reason already discussed with Mr. Grewal and the reason for the decision was no mystery, even though it did not specifically use the word “safety”.
[2] The letter of October 24 did not advise the parents that the Board guidelines provide for an appeal from any decision by a principal. In our view, that procedural omission is of no consequence because a group decision had already been made by the Board officials to whom an appeal would have been taken, at least some of whom had already discussed the matter with Mr. Grewal.
[3] The applicants concede that the Board had the authority to make the decision that it did. They also agree that the standard of review is reasonableness on the question of the merits or substance of the decision. Therefore, the only remaining issue for us to review is whether that decision was reasonable. Mr. Parker’s submissions essentially focus on the ongoing reasonableness of the Board’s decision.
[4] It seems to us that the original decision to remove the children temporarily from the school is unassailable. The Board had no other reasonable alternative on the information available at that time. The continuing removal of the children from the school is more troublesome. However, the Board has offered alternatives in its letter of October 24 that would reasonably accommodate an ongoing situation of indefinite length and it specified in that letter that the decision was “unless and until the sender(s) of the emails could be identified and dealt with by police.” The investigation by the police is ongoing but unresolved.
[5] In our view, it is not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the ongoing removal of the two children from the school is an appropriate course of action, particularly given the other special accommodation it is offering to the parents for the children.
[6] It is, of course, open to the Board to reconsider its decision and other options. However, our task is to review the decision that was made. In light of our conclusion that the Board’s decision was reasonable, it follows that the application for injunctive relief must be dismissed. The application itself is dismissed.
COSTS (following oral submissions)
[7] The applicants are to pay costs fixed at $10,000.00 if demanded.
ASTON J.
PEPALL J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 3, 2012
Date of Release: January 18, 2012
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 530/11
DATE: 20120103
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, PEPALL AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
ASHOAK GREWAL and KATARINA PARMESTAL Applicants
– and –
PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 3, 2012
Date of Release: January 18, 2012