A powerpoint slide presentation of the implications of bill 212 and its revisions in bill 81 in Ontario public schools.

1. Bill 81 and the Ontario Ministry of Education School Safety Act By Lisa Lahey Understanding the Revisions to Bill 212 (zero tolerance) in Ontario’s Public Schools

7. K.R. & M.R. v Great Essex County District School Board File No. SS09-0013 Citation 2010 CFSRB 8 Pursuant to section 311.7 of the Education Act R.S.O. 1990 c. E.2 K.R. and M.R. filed an appeal against the Great Essex County District School Board regarding expulsion of their son R.R. from his school for trafficking marijuana. In November 2009 R.R. was 15-years-old in grade 10 with special needs. R.R. was suspended from November 2009 to December 2009. R.R. was identified as having a communication-learning disability and had an Individual Education Plan (IEP). He also took medications for ADHD. During his suspension R.R. attended the Second Chance program. After he was expelled he did not attend Second Chance because the school board that runs the program refused his admission after he lost his expulsion appeal to GECDSB . The Board decided that R.R.’s actions impacted on the school climate but that his continued presence in the school would not create an unacceptable risk to anyone’s safety and that his history, age, lack of progressive discipline and the negative impact on his education mitigated against an expulsion. The Board quashed the expulsion and reinstated R.R. into the school. The Board also reached its decision based on the student’s history as he admitted that this was his “ first time ” selling drugs near school property. The Board did find that in terms of mitigating factors R.R. had control over his behaviour and his failure to disclose his supplier indicated an understanding that his actions were illegal and inappropriate. However under section 2.3 of the Act R.R.’s actions did not create an unacceptable level of risk. The most significant factor in his favour was that R.R . began attending drug counselling therapy and thereby demonstrated that he was capable of complying with school authority. The lack of progressive discipline was another issue. The Principal did not attempt this measure and it was decided that his approach hearkened back to zero tolerance. The board stated that the Principal’s suspension of the student for 20 days was appropriate for R.R.’s offence and informed him should he commit the offence again he would be expelled. R.R. was returned to the school and the record of his expulsion was expunged.

8. Physical or Sexual Assault Regulation and brackets etc Any physical or sexual assault against an educator, administrator or student is punishable by criminal charges, suspension and/or expulsion.

9. S.M. & Z.M. v. Peel District School Board, Ontario (EA. s.311.7.) File No. SS08-0022 Citation: 2009 CFSRB 11 On November 17 2009 an appeal was launched pursuant to section 311.7 of the Education Act R.S.O. 1990 c.E.2. by the family members identified as S.M. and Z.M. to the Child and Family Services Review Board in regard to the Peel District School Board’s decision to expel their son, A.M. from all schools in the Peel District School Board . The decision was reached after A.M., a 17-year-old student was involved in a dispute between two students during October 2008. At that time A.M. drove off the school premises with student A. to attend School 2, who then contacted several friends who were in possession of weapons. A.M. and A . then returned to School 1 to participate in the fight. Seventy-five to one hundred students engaged in the fight which involved hitting with pipes, tools, kicking and punching. School 1’s principal, S.W. suspended student A.M. under 310(1) of the Act from November to December 2008 citing “ injurious contact in the school”. S.W. later recommended A.M. ’s expulsion from all schools in the Peel District School Board and that he be assigned to the Fresh Start program as an alternative to a mainstream education. The expulsion was upheld by the PDSB Discipline Committee and assigned A.M. to the Fresh Start program. S.W . suspended A.M. as part of a mandatory policy clause included in Bill 82 which states that “ a principal shall suspend a pupil if s/he believes the pupil has engaged in ...[physical assault on another person]...” Section 311.1(1) states that after an investigation and at the principal’s discretion it is her responsibility to consider recommending to “that the pupil be expelled”. Interviews with students involved in the fight revealed that A.M. gave another student a tool from his car to use as a weapon and that A.M . participated in the assault but he himself did not possess or use a weapon. A.M. signed a witness statement agreeing to the above facts but he later recanted saying that he was afraid of A . and felt bullied into participating in the fight. Under Bill 82 , an amendment to Bill 212 , while making the decision to expel A.M. the board considered mitigating factors, the student’s history and whether or not progressive discipline had been enacted with A.M. Upon investigation the board discovered that mitigating and other factors were not applicable and that the student possessed a disruptive history. Progressive discipline was not used in A.M. ’s case since the nature of the offence was such that progressive discipline would likely prove ineffective and thus the appeal was overturned and A.M .’s expulsion was upheld.

11. E.P. v Peel District School Board, Ontario (CFSA s. 311.7) 2009 CFSRB 55 (CANLII) On September 4 and 11 2009 pursuant to section 311.7 of the Education Act R.S.O. 1990 c. E.2 an appeal was heard by E.P. through the Child and Family Services Review Board in regard to the expulsion of her daughter C.P. for using a weapon at school. C.P. is a 17-year-old student and in February 2009 she was involved in a snowball fight . A female student, S.E. threatened to assault C.P. as a result of the incident. Another student told C.P. that a student C., who does not attend the school, was going to beat her up. C.P. approached a teacher to report her concerns. The teacher recorded C.P.’s concerns in a school computer and sent C.P. to the office to share her concerns with the Vice-Principal. C.P. did not go to the office because she didn’t know S.E. ’s name and didn’t know who to complain about to the V.P. C.P. went home for lunch and retrieved a bike wrench. She returned to school and put the wrench into her locker. The student C. who did not attend the school was in the school hallway at the end of the school day and was told to leave by a staff member. C.P. and her friend C.M. left school together when C., S.E . and other students surrounded the girls. C. approached S.E. and grabbed her hand so S.E. could hit her. S.E . approached C.P. and hit her twice. C.P . shook the wrench free and S.E. Grabbed her by the hair and held down her head. C.P . swung the wrench and hit S.E . Several times. Another female student , O.D. retrieved a knife out of her schoolbag and flipped C.P. onto the ground. C. told C.P. she would shoot her. C.P. ’s brother arrived and sent the girls away. S.E. was hurt and covered in blood. She had facial cuts that were treated at a hospital. The Vice-Principal interviewed O.D. who told her C.P. had invited them to the school to fight. In March 2009 the school Principal issued C.P. a letter advising her of a 20-day suspension for “ assault cause bodily harm.” In March 2009 this was followed by a letter informing C.P. of her expulsion from the school. She was assigned to the Fresh Start program. On August 2009 C.P. ’s mother filed an appeal with the Child and Family Services Review Board. Under sections 310(1) and 311 of the Education Act a Principal is required to enact a mandatory suspension for assault cause bodily harm. Upon investigation the Principal determines whether s/he should recommend an expulsion to the board. Upon reviewing the case CFSRB concluded that the student behaved in self-defence, did not have a violent history and did not use more force than was necessary to defend herself. As a result CFSRB quashed the expulsion and C.P . was permitted to return to school.

13. Figure 1 Ontario Ministry of Education Reported Data on Suspension Rates in Ontario Public Schools The data was conducted from 2000 – 2001 one year before Bill 212 was implemented to 2004, three years after Bill 212 was implemented. The data revealed that school boards varied significantly in their interpretation of the bill. 9.0% 6.0% 3.0% 0.0% 7.9% 5.3%

21. Expulsions Principals no longer have the right to expel a student. S/he may offer a recommendation to the school board for student expulsion but ultimately it is the board that makes the decision whether or not expulsion is in both the school’s and the student’s best interests. In the case of student expulsion however the board is required to provide a viable alternative educational opportunity.

23. The issue of suspension, expulsion and increased incidents of violence in the schools present an ongoing challenge. Overall Ontario public schools do a respectable job at educating, disciplining and socializing students. The majority of students appear to benefit from Ontario’s school anti-violence and anti- bullying campaigns. An equal emphasis needs to be placed upon the home environment and parental and community influences in order for school initiatives to be fully effective.