for too much of ontario, each school principal is a law ... · web view15. a student’s record...

For Too Much of Ontario, Each School Principal Is a Law Unto Themselves, When It Comes to the Right of Students with Disabilities to Go To School

A Report by the AODA Alliance on the Sweeping Power of Ontario School Principals to Refuse to Admit a Student to School

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

July 23, 2020

I. Introduction and Summary

(a) What’s the Problem?

For years, Ontario’s Education Act has given every Ontario school principal the drastic power to refuse to admit to school any “person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils…". A student can be excluded from school for part or all of the school day. This report uses the terms “refusal to admit” and “exclusion from school” or simply “exclusion” to mean the same thing.

When a principal refuses to admit a student to school, that violates that student’s right to go to school to get an education. Under the Education Act as interpreted or applied by the Ontario Government and school boards, a student can be excluded from school for days, weeks or even months.

Ontario’s Ministry of Education has given School Boards and principals very little direction on how this sweeping power may be used. School Boards are therefore left largely free to do as much or as little as they wish to ensure that this power is not abused by an individual school principal.

A School Board can develop a policy on how a principal can use the power to refuse to admit a student to school; however, a School Board does not have to do so. If it does adopt a policy, it does not have to be a good policy.

http://www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.aodaalliance.org/

AODA Alliance: Report on Refusals to Admit 2

(b) Taking Stock – The AODA Alliance Surveys Ontario School Boards

The AODA Alliance therefore conducted a survey of Ontario’s major School Boards to find out what their policies and practices are regarding the exclusion of students from school. The non-partisan grassroots AODA Alliance advocates for accessibility for people with disabilities, including for students with disabilities. See its website’s Education page.

This report makes public the results of the AODA Alliance‘s survey and investigation. It reveals an arbitrary patchwork of different policies around Ontario, unjustifiably treating the most vulnerable students differently from one part of Ontario to the next. There is a pressing need for the Ontario Government to step into the gap, to protect students, and especially students with disabilities.In an error which the AODA Alliance regrets, the survey was inadvertently not earlier sent to one board, the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board, before this report was written. It Was sent to that Board on July 9, 2020. No response has been received. An addendum to this report will be made public if a response is received that alters the results expressed in this report. This error does not diminish this report’s findings or recommendations.

School Boards were asked (i) if it has a policy on when-and-how its school principals can refuse to admit a student to school, (ii) whether the Board tracks its principal’s use of this power, and (iii) how many students have been excluded from school. The AODA Alliance sent its survey to School Boards twice, once in 2019, and once in 2020. The Council of Directors of Education retained private legal counsel to get legal advice before responding to this survey.

(c) The Survey Revealed an Arbitrary Patchwork of Wildly Varying Local Requirements

Of Ontario’s 72 School Boards, only 33 Boards have been found to have a written policy or procedure on refusals to admit a student to school. Only 36 School Boards responded to the AODA Alliance’s survey. Of those, only 11 Boards gave the AODA Alliance their policy or procedure on refusals to admit.

Six School Boards told the AODA Alliance that they have no policy on refusals to admit. An extensive web search by the AODA Alliance revealed that another 22 School Boards have a written policy or procedure on this topic. In a number of cases, these were not easy to find. Taken together, a large number of Ontario School Boards revealed a troubling lack of openness and accountability on this subject.

This report’s analysis of the 33 policies or procedures on refusals to admit, as obtained by the AODA Alliance, revealed that there are wild variations between the written policies of School

http://www.aodaalliance.org/education


Boards across Ontario on excluding a student from school. Some are very short and say very little. Others are far more extensive and detailed.

As for safeguards for vulnerable students and their parents in the face of an exclusion from school, there are arbitrary and unjustified differences from Board to Board. Some Board policies have commendable and helpful ingredients that should be required of all School Boards. Some Board policies contain unfair and inappropriate ingredients that should be forbidden. For example, no Board should use a refusal to admit to facilitate a police investigation, or set an arbitrary time limit in advance for an appeal hearing from a refusal to admit, or give a student or their family an arbitrary time limit for presenting such an appeal.

There is no justification for such wild variations from Board to Board, from no policy, to policies that say very little, to substantially better policies. Every student facing an exclusion from school deserves fair procedures and effective safeguards. Every School Board should meet basic requirements of transparency and accountability in their use of this drastic power. No compelling policy objective is served by leaving each School Board to reinvent the wheel here.

(d) The Urgently Needed Solution: Action Now by the Ontario Government

This situation cries out for leadership on this issue by Ontario’s Ministry of Education. The failure of so many School Boards to even have a policy in this area, the unwillingness of so many School Boards to even answer questions about their policy on this issue, and the fact that policies are so hard to find on line combine to create a disturbing picture. For too much of Ontario, well-intentioned school principals are left to be a law unto themselves. The AODA Alliance expects that these hard-working and dedicated principals neither asked for this nor would like this situation to remain as is.

This issue has serious implications for students with disabilities. Refusals to admit a student to school disproportionately burden some students with disabilities.

The COVID-19 crisis escalates the urgency of this issue. When schools re-open this fall, there is a real risk that there could be a rash of more refusals to admit some students with disabilities to school. This threatens to be the way some overwhelmed and overburdened principals will cope with the stressful uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ministry of Education should head off this problem before it happens, by immediately directing School Boards to implement some basic and overdue requirements for refusals to admit a student to school. The Ministry should then develop a comprehensive and broader set


of mandatory requirements for all School Boards when exercising the power to refuse to admit a student to school.

Examples of helpful requirements that the Ministry of Education should require, and that this report documents as now in place in one or more School Boards include the following:

1. Refusals to admit should be recognized as an infringement of the student’s right to go to school to get an education, and as raising potential human rights issues, especially for students with disabilities. The Ontario Human Rights Code has primacy over the Education Act and the power to refuse to admit a student to school.

2. A refusal to admit should only be imposed for a proper safety purpose. A student cannot be refused admission to school for purposes of discipline.

3. Maximum time limits should be set for a refusal to admit, with a process for considering how to extend it if necessary and justified.

4. A refusal to admit a student to school should only be permitted in very rare, extreme cases, as a last resort, after considering or trying all less intrusive alternatives. A principal should be required to take a step-by-step tiered approach to deciding whether to refuse to admit a student to school, first exhausting all less restrictive alternatives, and first ensuring that the student’s disability-related needs have been accommodated as required under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

5. It should not be left to an individual principal to unilaterally decide on their own to refuse to admit a student to school. Prior approval of a higher authority with the School Board should be required, supported by sufficient documentation of the deliberations.

6. A principal should be required to work with a student and their family on issues well before it degenerates to the point of considering a refusal to admit. The School Board should be required to have a mandatory meeting with the family before a refusal to admit is imposed.

7. A principal should be required to immediately send a letter to the parents of a student whom they are refusing to admit to school, setting out the facts and specifics that are the reasons for the exclusion from school. A senior Board supervisor that approved the decision should be required to co-sign the letter. The letter should also be signed by the Director of Education if the student is to be excluded from all schools in the Board.


8. A School Board that excludes a student from school should be required to put in place a plan for delivering an effective educational program to that student while excluded from school, including the option of face-to-face engagement with a teacher off of school property. This plan should be monitored to ensure it is sufficient.

9. If a student is excluded from school, the School Board should be under a strong duty to work with the student and family to get them back to school as soon as possible.

10. A School Board that excludes a student from school should be required to hold a re-entry meeting with the student and family to transition to the return to school.

11. Any appeals to the Board of Trustees for the School Board from a refusal to admit should assure fair procedures to the student and their family. An excluded student should at least have all the safeguards in the appeal process as does a student who is subjected to discipline.

12. The appeal should be heard by the entire Board of Trustees, and not just a sub-committee of some trustees. An appeal hearing should be held and decided quickly, since the student is languishing at home.

13. A Board of Trustees, hearing an appeal from a refusal to admit, should consider whether the School Board has justified the student’s initial exclusion from school and its continuation. The burden should be on the School Board to justify the exclusion from school, and not on the student trying to go back to school. At an appeal hearing, the principal should first present why the exclusion from school is justified and should continue, before the student or parents are asked to show why the student should be allowed to return to school.

14. When an appeal is launched, the School Board should be required to first try to resolve the issue short of a full appeal hearing.

15. A student’s record of a refusal to admit to school should not stain the student’s official school record.

16. If a School Board directs that a student can only come to school for part of the school day), the same safeguards for the student should be required as for a student who is excluded for the entire day.

17. Any policy in this area should be periodically reviewed and updated.


II. Background to This Issue

Here is the backdrop to this report. For many years, the Education Act has given school principals the power to exclude a person from school, including students. Section 265(1) (m) of Ontario's Education Act provides:

"265. (1) It is the duty of a principal of a school, in addition to the principal’s duties as a teacher…

… (m) subject to an appeal to the Board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils; …"

This is separate from and different from a school’s power to impose discipline on a student for misconduct, such as suspending or expelling a student from school. Those disciplinary powers are restricted by Ontario’s detailed regime for discipline of students. Section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act does not require that regime to rein in a school principal’s power to refuse to admit a student to school.

Under s. 265(1)(m), each principal not only has the right and the power to refuse to admit some students to school; Each principal actually has the affirmative duty to refuse some students to school.

A refusal to admit a student to school is a direct and clear infringement of that student’s right to an education and their right to go to school. The issue of whether or when a principal should refuse to admit a student to school must never be confused with the very different issue of when students with disabilities should be included in the regular classroom as opposed to attending a separate or “special education“ class. When a principal refuses to admit a student to school, that means that the student is entirely shut out from school, pure and simple. They are excluded from any and all classrooms, both the regular classroom and taking part in a separate or special education class. Once a principal excludes a student from school, they are shut out of all classes, both regular classes as well as separate special education classes.

The discretion that each school principal has to decide over which students to refuse to admit to school, and why to do so, and for how long to do so, is extremely broad. This power can be misused, especially to keep some students with disabilities away from school. This is made


worse by the School Board’s sweeping power under Ontario regulations to shorten the length of the school day for students with disabilities, even over a parent’s objection.

The Education Act does not require principals to give a parent their reasons for excluding a student from school. It does not cap the length of the student’s exclusion from school. It does not require the principal to report to senior officials within the School Board that a student was excluded from school, or why or for how long.

The Education Act does not require the principal to consult anyone inside or outside the School Board before deciding to refuse to admit a student to school. It does not require the principal to consider or try less drastic options before deciding to refuse to admit a student to school. It does not require the principal to make the exclusion as short and minimally burdensome on the student as possible. It does not require a principal or School Board to let the student or their family know what rights they have.

The Education Act does not require a School Board to have a policy or operational procedure to regulate how and when a principal may refuse to admit a student to school. It does not require a School Board or the Ministry to keep track of how often or why students are excluded from school under this power, or to make such information public. It does not require a School Board to use a unique attendance code to record a student’s absence from school due to the principal refusing to admit them to school.

In the absence of a clear provincial policy on how and when refusals to admit a student to school may be used, policies and practices vary from School Board to School Board and from school to school within a specific School Board.

Disproportionately, the power to refuse to admit has been used against some students with disabilities, leading them too often to be excluded from school altogether or restricting them to attend school only for reduced hours. Long before the COVID-19 crisis, advocates from the disability community called for the power of school principals to refuse to admit a student to school to be reduced and regulated. For example, one and a half years ago, on January 30, 2019 a joint news release was issued and a joint news conference was held at the Ontario Legislature by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition. To date, the Ontario Government has made no significant reform of this power, nor has it committed to do so. In March 2019, the Ontario Government said it would consult on refusals to admit a student to school. However, to date, it appears only to have sought input from parents of students with autism. Students with autism are at risk of facing refusals to admit. However, they are not the only students who have been subjected to refusals to admit a student to school.

https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/news-release-disability-advocates-call-for-action-limiting-when-principal-can-exclude-student-from-school/


In September 2018, the Ontario Human Rights Commission released an updated policy on accessible education for students with disabilities. Its recommendations to the Ontario Government included, among other things:

"9. Identify and end the practice of exclusion wherein principals ask parents to keep primary and secondary students with disabilities home from school for part or all of the school day (and the role that an improper use of section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act may be playing in this practice)."

During the COVID-19 crisis, even though they might not be aware of it, all parents have unexpectedly experienced what parents and students go through when they are subjected to a refusal to admit a student to school. When an Ontario school principal has refused to admit a student to school in the past, the student and their family might be left for days, weeks or months, not knowing when they will be able to return to school. During the COVID-19 crisis, all parents and students know the incredible stress that this presents. All students have been uncertain for over three months over when they will be able to return to school, and for how long they will be able to return to school.

Before COVID-19, exclusion from school was even more stressful for those students subjected to refusals to admit, and for their families. Those students were singled out for such exclusions, knowing that all other students were able to go to school. Moreover, during COVID-19, School Boards are trying to offer distance learning for students stuck at home. In contrast, Ontario has not required School Boards to provide education at home for students who are blocked from attending school by a principal’s refusal to admit them to school. Some School Boards have a policy to do so. Others do not.

III. Ministry of Education Policy Directions to School Boards on Refusals to Admit a Student to School

Over the years, Ontario’s Ministry of Education has issued a substantial number of policy directions to School Boards on a wide spectrum of different subjects. These written directions are called Policy/Program Memoranda (PPMs). School Boards are expected to treat these very seriously and to strictly follow them. These policy directions are a major means for provincial regulation of and oversight of Ontario’s publicly-funded education system. School Board officials know they are important directions from the Ontario Government that produce concrete expectations of them.

http://ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-accessible-education-students-disabilities

http://ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-accessible-education-students-disabilities


The AODA Alliance asked the Ministry of Education for any policy directions that it has given School Boards on the use of the power to refuse to admit a student to school. On June 25, 2020, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky sent an email to the Ministry’s senior official responsible for special education, Assistant Deputy Minister Jeff Butler. That email stated:

“We are eager for any written directions the Ministry has given all School Boards over when or how the power of a principal to refuse to admit a student to school under s. 265(1)(m) of the Education Act may be used, whether a PPM or other memo. Included in this request, and very important, we are interested in any such directions that have been issued since the COVID-19 pandemic, or as might pertain to the return to school this fall. We would appreciate receiving these in an accessible MS Word document, and not a PDF.

If you require any clarifications, let me know. Thanks and stay safe.”

As of the date of this report, the AODA Alliance received no answer to that email. The AODA Alliance often gets prompt and helpful responses to similar requests for information from that office.

Searching on its own, the AODA Alliance has located one provincial PPM that sets requirements for refusals to admit a student to school, PPM 145, dated October 17, 2018. That 26 page PPM is entitled “Discipline and Promoting Positive Student Behaviour”. It states that it replaces PPM 145 dated December 5, 2012.

This PPM provides very extensive directions on a School Board’s use of its power to administer discipline to a student. As noted earlier, a School Board’s power to discipline a student is separate from its power to refuse to admit a student to school under s. 265(1)(m) of the Education Act.

In sharp contrast, it says very little about refusals to admit. It therefore leaves it to each School Board to decide on its own whether to have a policy in place for refusals to admit, and if so, what that policy will include and whether the School Board will make that policy easy for the public (including parents) to find. The updated PPM 145 only includes the following regarding the power to refuse to admit a student to school:

“In Part X of the Education Act, clause 265(1)(m) permits a principal to “refuse to admit” to the school or to a class someone whose presence in the school would be “detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils”. This


provision is frequently referred to as the “exclusion provision”. Exclusion is not to be used as a form of discipline. If a principal does decide that it is necessary to exclude a student from the school, the principal is expected to notify the student’s parents of the exclusion as soon as possible in the circumstances, and to inform them of their right to appeal under clause 265(1)(m).”

The AODA Alliance undertook a search of the Ministry of Education website to see if there are any other Ministry policy directions on refusals to admit a student to school. None were located. If any exist, they should have been positioned and labelled in a way to make them readily apparent and easy for the public and School Boards to quickly find.

The Ministry appears to have given the same direction to School Boards on refusals to admit a student to school for over a decade. An online search revealed a Memorandum from Kevin Constante, Deputy Minister of Education, to the Directors of Education of Ontario School Boards dated October 19, 2009 which directed:

“In revising P/PM 145 you will note a clarification point for principals regarding part X of the Education Act, clause 265(1)(m) frequently referred to as the “exclusion” provision. A reference has been added to note that “exclusion” is not to be used as a form of discipline. In addition, if a principal does decide that it is necessary to exclude a pupil from the school, the principal is expected to notify the parents of the exclusion as soon as possible in the circumstances, and to inform them of their right to appeal under this clause. The legislation remains the same.”

In the absence of detailed direction from the Ministry of Education on point, the AODA Alliance decided to survey all Ontario School Boards to find out what policy they had in place regarding the power of school principals to refuse to admit a student to school. This report now turns attention to that survey.

IV. The AODA Alliance Survey Process

The AODA Alliance crafted a straightforward series of questions for School Boards. This is in Appendix I.

Circulation of the AODA Alliance survey to School Boards and collation of results was conducted by a dedicated team of law students at the Osgoode Hall Law School who volunteered their time for this project to the AODA Alliance. The AODA Alliance is deeply indebted to them for their time, effort, energy and dedication.


The AODA Alliance has twice sent its survey questions by email to Ontario School Boards. These were first sent out in Winter 2019. It was sent out a second time in June 2020. Through inadvertence that the AODA Alliance regrets, the survey email was not sent to one school board, namely, the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board. A search of that board’s website revealed no policy on refusals to admit. That Board has now been sent this survey. An addendum to this report will be made public if an answer is received requiring any changes to this report’s details.

Shortly after this survey was sent out for the first time in Winter 2019, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was contacted by a lawyer working at a private law firm. The lawyer said she was retained by the Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE). Each School Board has a Director of Education. The Director of Education is in effect the School Board’s CEO. The Director of Education reports to the School Board’s elected trustees.

CODE’s lawyer asked for certain clarifications about the survey. The AODA Alliance provided the requested clarifications during a February 8, 2019 phone call with CODE’s private lawyer, and repeated them in a confirming email to CODE’s lawyer on February 9, 2019. The text of that email is set out in Appendix II.

Among other things, CODE’s lawyer asked what the AODA Alliance planned to do with the survey results. The email setting out the survey questions had made clear to School Boards that the AODA Alliance planned to make the survey results public. The lawyer was told that this survey is part of the AODA Alliance‘s effort to get the Ontario Government to institute reforms, including issuing a policy directive on exclusions from school, and to get the Government to convene a provincial summit on this issue.

The AODA Alliance told CODE’s lawyer that the AODA Alliance was prepared to answer any other questions that School Boards might have. The February 9, 2019 email from AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky to CODE’s lawyer stated:

“May I ask that you encourage your client, and the school boards on whose behalf they retained you, to answer our survey's questions. As publicly-funded school boards, their policies, procedures and practices in this area are important to a great many students and their families across Ontario. The public has a right to know the information we seek.”


After this, in Winter 2019, the AODA Alliance received responses from a number of School Boards. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic during the first half of 2020, the AODA Alliance decided to send the survey out by email to Ontario School Boards for a second time. The results of both the 2019 and 2020 circulation of this survey are brought together in this report.

This report does not address the small number of School Boards in Ontario that only include one school. This report’s focus is on the 72 major School Boards which are responsible for a number of schools within a geographic territory.

Beyond the survey, the team of law students volunteering for the AODA Alliance also took steps to try to see if School Boards had a policy on exclusions from school on the School Board website. This team did not have time to exhaustively dig deeply into every School Board’s website. Any results found from their web searches are included in this report, combined with the survey responses.

V. What the Survey Revealed

(a) By the Numbers

There are 72 publicly-funded major School Boards in Ontario. Only 36 Boards sent the AODA Alliance any response at all to its survey. The 36 School Boards who responded at all are listed in Appendix III, part (a). We include in this list any School Board that provided any response at all, even if the response provided no School Board policy or other helpful information in answer to any of the survey questions. The others did not answer at all.

Of the 36 School Boards that responded to the AODA Alliance in 2019 or 2020 (or both), six stated that their School Board has no policy on refusals to admit. Those School Boards are:

Renfrew County Catholic District School BoardYork Catholic District School BoardHamilton-Wentworth District School BoardBluewater District School BoardLondon District Catholic School BoardKeewatin-Patricia District School Board

Of the 36 School Boards that responded in some way to the AODA Alliance survey, four Boards stated that they would not complete the survey, and provided no answers to any of the AODA Alliance‘s questions. Of the 36 School Boards that responded to the survey in 2019 or 2020 or both, six School Boards stated that to obtain a response, the AODA Alliance must make a


submission to the School Board’s Research Committee, or alternatively told the AODA Alliance that it must file a Freedom of Information request. The AODA Alliance, a volunteer coalition, did not have the people and resources to undertake those processes. Those Boards are listed in Appendix III, part (j).

In the case of the Toronto Catholic District School Board, it in 2019 it told the AODA Alliance that it must submit an application to the Board’s Research Committee. In response to the AODA Alliance’s 2020 survey email, it restated that position and added the following:

Please be advised that all external research requests are suspended for the remainder of the 2019-2020 academic year. Attached please find a file containing an application form as well as information regarding the application process. At this time, we are accepting completed applications online only and would encourage you to apply by sending your completed application to the following email address: [response email]

The public should not have to submit an application to a School Board’s Research Committee in order to get the School Board’s policy on refusals to admit. Indeed, the fact that several other School Boards were able to answer the AODA Alliance survey without requiring the AODA Alliance to make an application to the School Board Research Committee or submit a Freedom of Information request is compelling proof that this survey can properly be answered without erecting such unwarranted bureaucratic barriers to the School Board’s public accountability.

The Director of the Halton District School Board, which refused to answer our survey in either year, stated the following in his January 18, 2019 email to the AODA Alliance:

These are fairly extensive questions. I am not prepared to answer them at this time or provide staff names that would.There is no indication as to the purpose of this survey and it is unusual for questions such as this to come through an email

This year, in a response from the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board, the Superintendent of Human Resources stated the following in his June 10, 2020 email to the AODA Alliance:

I don't doubt that you are a volunteer with the AODA Alliance but a student email is not something we would normally respond to on behalf of an organization.


I would suggest that the Alliance makes it's request through the Ministry of Education and if it is determined by the Ministry that information should be provided, then the Ministry would provide that direction to school boards.

Of the 36 School Boards that provided a response to our survey, 11 provided a policy or procedure on refusals to admit a student to school. Of those few Boards that addressed any of the AODA Alliance’s other questions, only some answered all five of the AODA Alliance’s survey questions.

Through extensive web searches, the AODA Alliance was able to find some sort of posting on the websites of 22 additional School Boards, which could be described as policies or procedures on exclusions from school. Those Boards are listed in Appendix III, part (d) These were in addition to the 11 policies provided directly by School Boards to the AODA Alliance. Eight of those policies came from school boards who answered our survey but did not provide a policy. Those Boards are listed in Appendix III, part (f).

This report adds the independently retrieved policies together with the 11 policies provided by School Boards directly in response to the AODA Alliance survey, giving a total of 33 School Board policies on refusals to admit that have been unearthed, one way or another. This report uses the broadest and most inclusive definition possible for a School Board policy or procedure on refusals to admit a student to school.

Therefore, for 40 of Ontario’s 72 major School Boards, the AODA Alliance was unable to unearth a policy or procedure on refusals to admit a student to school, this is the case after extensive efforts, including twice sending the survey to School Boards, after assisting the private lawyer that Directors of Education retained to give them independent legal advice, and after extensive efforts at searching the web.

The web searches turned up policies or procedures on refusals to admit from 14 School Boards that did not answer the AODA Alliance‘s survey at all. Those Boards are listed in Appendix III, part (e)

Policies were also located through the AODA Alliance ‘s web searches for three School Boards that had said that the AODA Alliance must submit its survey to the Board’s Research Committee. Those Boards are:

York Region District School BoardHalton District School BoardSt Clair Catholic District School Board


(b) A Closer Look at the Content of the School Board Policies or Procedures on Refusals to Admit that the AODA Alliance Obtained

1. Wild Variations from School Board to School Board

Of the 33 School Boards for which the AODA Alliance has been able to locate or obtain a policy or procedure on refusals to admit a student to school, those policies or procedures vary significantly from Board to Board. This is addressed in the next section of this report.

Of the School Boards that have a policy or procedure that the AODA Alliance was able to obtain one way or another, 13 of those Boards’ policies or procedures at most repeats s. 265(1)(m) of the Education Act, may add some or all of the brief directions in PPM 145 regarding refusals to admit a student to school, quoted above, and perhaps adds a very little more. That includes these Boards:

Limestone District School BoardAlgonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School BoardDurham Catholic District School BoardYork Region District School BoardSt Clair Catholic District School BoardNipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School BoardConseil scolaire de district du Nord-Est de l'OntarioConseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’OntarioNortheastern Catholic District School BoardDistrict School Board Ontario North EastThunder Bay Catholic District School BoardNorthwest Catholic District School BoardKenora Catholic District School Board

In contrast, 20 Boards have more extensive policies or procedures. Some of these go on for pages. Others are as short as two pages long. The AODA Alliance has included Boards in this category even if their policy or procedure does not add very much to s. 265(1)(m) and PPM 145. That includes these Boards:

Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'OntarioOttawa Catholic District School BoardUpper Canada District School BoardPeterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board


Simcoe County District School BoardDurham District School BoardPeel District School BoardHalton District School BoardHamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School BoardToronto District School BoardHuron Perth Catholic District School BoardAvon Maitland District School BoardUpper Grand District School BoardGrand Erie District School BoardGreater Essex County District School BoardSuperior-Greenstone District School BoardSuperior North Catholic District School BoardNear North District School BoardRainbow District School BoardRainy River District School Board

For example, the Toronto District School Board’s policy is relatively new and quite extensive. it was developed over a two year period of helpful dialogue between Board staff and the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee. It was the TDSB’s Special Education Advisory Committee that brought to public light the lack of any such policy or procedure at Canada’s largest School Board, and that pressed for substantial reforms.

Several School Boards have detailed policies and procedures on the use of a School Board’s power to administer discipline to students, up to and including suspensions or expulsions from school. This shows that there is real value in having detailed policy in that distinctive but comparable area. Whether a student is suspended or expelled from school, or is excluded from school under s. 265(1)(m), they cannot go to school due to a School Board decision to keep them out. Their right to an education is commensurately being denied.

The following discussion gives illustrations on an issue-by-issue basis of good or bad ingredients that have found their way into a School Board policy on refusals to admit a student to school. This report does not attempt to quantify how many School Boards have in place one or other specific ingredient in its policy on refusals to admit. In the following discussion, where a specific example is given of a School Board having a specific policy requirement on point, unless the contrary is indicated, the AODA Alliance is not suggesting that that is the only School Board that has adopted such a specific ingredient in its refusal to admit policy.


2. Refusals to Admit Focus in Significant Part on Students with Disabilities

The Ministry and School Boards must treat refusals to admit as disproportionately a disability issue. It is beyond debate that the power to refuse to admit a student to school has been brought to bear disproportionately on students with disabilities. Several School Boards explicitly identify refusals to admit a student to school as bearing on students with special education needs.

For example, the Superior Greenstone District School Board’s January 28, 2019 memorandum to all principals from Will Goodman, Superintendent of Education, outlines the procedures for refusing to admit a student to school under s. 265(1)(m). The memorandum’s very subject line is:

“Subject: Excluding Students With Special Needs”

In a second example showing that this power is seen as focusing on, if not targeted at, students with disabilities, the April 23, 2019 policy of the Near North District School Board on refusals to admit a student to school states, among other things:

“On occasion, an exceptional pupil may exhibit behaviour that is the result of the pupil’s disability or disabilities. On rare occasions, this behaviour may lead to situations where the physical and/or mental well-being of the pupil, others, or staff is negatively impacted to the degree that a principal believes that the continued presence of the exceptional pupil is detrimental to others.”

The term “exceptional pupil” is a well-known term of art in Ontario’s Education Act and special education regime. It refers to students with special education needs. Most of them are students with disabilities.

In a third example showing that the issue of refusals to admit a student to school is all about students with disabilities, the Avon Maitland District School Board policy states:

“A student could be excluded due to a medical condition, a physical condition, a mental health concern, or a behavioural concern.”

Later that policy specifies that a medical exclusion comes from directions from the Medical Officer of Health.


It is even clearer that the Avon Maitland District School Board understands that a student can be excluded from school due to a physical disability, which it calls a “physical condition.” Its policy further states:

“Students who are being excluded due to physical conditions may require instruction in the home. Carefully determine if the instruction should take place in a public location, for example, the public library or a local school. Transportation, if necessary, is the parent/guardian’s responsibility;”

A fourth example of this is the Grand Erie District School Board‘s policy, which includes an Appendix C, setting out a form for re-entry to school after a student was subjected to a refusal to admit to school. That form for a re-entry meeting, to discuss plans for possible re-entry to school, includes a line for “Exceptionality”, to list the student’s exceptionality, if any. The term “exceptionality” is a term used in Ontario’s special education for specifying the student’s specific special education condition, a recognized disability or giftedness.

As a fifth example, the Greater Essex County District School Board procedure on refusals to admit makes it clear that it focuses on certain students with disabilities where it states:

“An exclusion is also sometimes also referred to as a “refusal to admit”. There are two types: behavioural and medical.”

As a sixth example, the Near North District School Board’s policy states among situations that can give rise to a refusal to admit, the following:

“On occasion, an exceptional pupil may exhibit behaviour that is the result of the pupil’s disability or disabilities.”

Similarly, the Near North District School Board’s policy lists among several criteria for when a refusal to admit can occur, the following which include specific references to some students with disabilities :

“3. CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH EXCLUSION CAN OCCUR Exclusion can occur only after consideration of the following criteria, it being recognized that every case is unique:

a) The pupil’s behaviour cannot be managed on a consistent or reliable basis using the strategies in place and the point has been reached where the principal


believes that the continued presence of the pupil in the school would be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupil and/or others.

b) The exceptional pupil’s behaviour, which is the result of his/her disability/disabilities, cannot be managed on a consistent or reliable basis using the strategies in place with the result that the point has been reached where the principal believes that the continued presence of the pupil in the school would be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupil and/or others….”

3. Board’s Duty to Establish an Operational Procedure for Refusals to Admit

If the Ministry of Education will not set proper province-wide requirements for refusals to admit, each School Board must do so. As noted above, many have not. TDSB has a policy on refusals to admit, which also commendably requires that the staff of the Board:

“will establish a procedure that will outline the processes for refusing admittance of a student to a school. The procedure will outline the steps a school principal has to take when exercising section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act…”

4. Directing a Student to Only Come to School for Part of the School Day Is In Effect a Refusal to Admit

Whether a student is told to stay away from school for all or part of the school day, this should be treated as a refusal to admit with all the necessary safeguards brought to bear for the student and parents. School Boards are all over the map on this issue. Some do not speak to it at all. those that do speak to I take very different positions.

The Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board commendably and correctly treats a decision of a School Board to only let a student attend school for a modified or reduced number of hours per day as in effect a refusal to admit a student to school or a “partial exclusion” from school, according to its Draft Policy on Modified School Days. That Board’s draft policy states that a parent that is not agreeable to the modified school days can appeal the decision to the Board of Trustees under s. 265(1)(m) of the Education Act. The AODA Alliance notes that that provision is exclusively about refusals to admit a student to school.

Similarly, in its procedure on refusals to admit, the Durham District School Board in substance recognized that a modified school day that reduces a student’s permissible hours in school, if


not voluntarily agreed to by the family, is a refusal to admit. The Durham District School Board’s policy states:

“A student may be excluded indefinitely or for any other reasonable period of time from one class, multiple classes, for a part of the day, or for an entire day. An exclusion may also result in regular and substantial alterations to the school day.”

In contrast, the Rainy River District School Board specifically states in its policy or procedure that a School Board’s decision to only let a student come to school for a reduced school day is not a refusal to admit under s. 265(1)(m).

The TDSB’s operational procedure for refusals to admit and erroneously concludes that a School Board directing that a student may only attend school for reduced hours, a modified school day, is not a refusal to admit. Despite that, it is nevertheless quite helpful that TDSB’s operational procedure in effect imposes on principals most if not all the same requirements or strictures before a student’s school day can be “modified” i.e. reduced, as are imposed before issuing a refusal to admit, as follows:

“(a) While legally a modified school day is not a refusal to admit, it is important to remember that a modified school day will have an impact on the student and the student's family. A students' day may be modified for reasons that may include medical, clinical, therapy, social, environmental, and/or part of behavioural intervention strategies focused on individual student goals in consultation with parents. Therefore, a principal must consult with parents, all appropriate central staff including their Superintendent of Education, medical, behavioural, psychology, and/or social work when considering if modifying a student's school day is in the best interests of the student.

Much the same as a refusal to admit, a modified school day must only be issued as part of a collaborative plan which includes input from parents, staff, and when appropriate medical, clinical, behavioural and/or social work professionals after all other available interventions and supports have been exhausted.”

5. Refusal to Admit to School Violates a Student’s Right to Go to School

A policy on refusals to admit should recognize that a refusal to admit is an infringement of the student’s right to go to school to get an education. Yet many School Board policies do not even


refer to the right of students to attend school as being implicated by a refusals to admit a student to school. TDSB’s operational procedure commendably does in effect recognize this, stating:

“Notwithstanding a principal's duties under section 265(1) (m) of the Education Act, it is important to remember that school-aged students who live in the TDSB's area of jurisdiction have the right to attend one of the TDSB's schools without payment of a fee. The right of a student to attend at TDSB schools is outlined in section 32 of the Education Act.”

6. Importance of Respecting the Human Rights of a Student Subjected to a Refusal to Admit to School

Similarly it is important for any policy to emphasize that a refusal to admit a student to school, especially in the case of students with disabilities can raise human rights issues. The Ontario Human Rights Code prevails over the Education Act and School Board policies.

Several School Board policies refer in general terms with no specifics to the Ontario Human Rights Code. TDSB’s policy is an example of one which commendably goes further, requiring:

“Refusal to Admit decisions must also fall into accordance with human rights accommodations as outlined in the Human Rights Code and provide evidence of undue hardship arising from ‘bona fide’ health and safety concerns by admitting certain persons into the school or classroom.”

It is good that the Peel District School Board not only references the Ontario Human Rights Code, but also spells out that it takes primacy over the Education Act and the power to refuse to admit a student to school. The Peel District School Board policy states:

“The Human Rights Code (Code) of Ontario has primacy over provincial legislation and policies, as well as School Board policies and procedures, such that the Education Act, regulations, Ministry of Education Program Policy Memoranda, and Board policies and procedures are subject to, and shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Code.The process set out in these procedures shall be informed by and implemented in accordance with the principles of equity and inclusion articulated in Policy/Program Memorandum 119 (Equity and Inclusive Education).”


As well, the Avon Maitland District School Board commendably recognizes that a refusal to admit can implicate a student’s human rights. Its policy states:

10.4 “An individual who appeals an exclusion may argue that their rights pursuant to the Human Rights Code have been infringed.10.5 In addition, a separate right to apply to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario exists where an individual believes their rights pursuant to the Human Rights Code have been infringed.”

7. Important to Narrow the Purpose of Refusals to Admit to School

A refusal to admit can only be imposed for a proper purpose. It is important for this purpose to be spelled out in narrow and specific terms.

The Halton District School Board Administrative Procedure in helpful to the extent that it focuses the purpose of a refusal to admit a student to school:

“Exclusion from school should be temporary and for the purpose of putting in place a plan to promote the student’s inclusion while supporting the safety of others.”

A seriously erroneous provision in a School Board policy or procedure on the permissible purposes for refusing to admit a student to school is found in the Toronto District School Board’s 2019 operational procedure on refusals to admit a student to school. That procedure contains several other positive provisions, as addressed elsewhere in this report. It erroneously provides that a principal may refuse to admit a student to school in the following circumstances, among others:

“Where the school principal has been told that they cannot commence an investigation of an incident (ordered by Toronto Police Service) and the principal and Superintendent of Education believes that the presence of the student will be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of pupils (Consultation with Caring and Safe Schools and SOE is required.)”

It is the AODA Alliance ‘s position that a refusal to admit a student to school cannot be ordered in whole or in part for the purpose of facilitating a police investigation. This is so no matter how justified the police are in conducting that investigation.


If the refusal to admit a student to school is justified because a principal and Superintendent of Education believes that the presence of the student will be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of pupils, then it is permitted for that safety-related purpose. A police investigation does not prove that such a belief by the principal is warranted. If the principal does not have a justified belief in such a safety risk to students, then the fact of a police investigation does not support or buttress the refusals to admit.

Put another way, the power to refuse to admit a student to school under the Education Act can only be used to advance the purposes of the Education Act. That Act’s purpose is the education of children and youth. It was not enacted to facilitate law enforcement.

Moreover, even if a police investigation were underway, there is no rational need for a student to be shut out of an entire School Board to facilitate that investigation. If police are speaking to witnesses, they would not do so in the middle of a busy classroom. They would likely take individual witnesses to a private place to speak to them, either a private room at school or at a police station. If there is some justification for isolating the student under investigation, that student can be located elsewhere in the school, or in an extreme case, in another school, for the short number of hours that the police need to speak to witnesses.

If witnesses are taken to a police station to be interviewed, which is a typical procedure, there is no justification for excluding a student from their school, much less, from all schools. These concerns were raised with TDSB at meetings of its Special Education Advisory Committee, that was reviewing drafts of this operational procedure. No TDSB staff gave any substantive response to these valid concerns, much less any justification for disregarding them.

8. Refusal to Admit Must Not Be Used as Discipline

Several School Board policies repeat the Ministry’s PPM 145’s requirement that refusals to admit a student to school are not to be used as a form of student discipline. The TDSB’s operational procedure goes further, spelling out a safeguard that addresses this in part, as follows:

“A principal's determination of when to issue a refusal to admit must include an analysis of whether school discipline is an appropriate course of action. Discipline is a form of corrective behaviour which assumes that a student can recognize the impact and implications of their actions.”

The AODA cautions that TDSB’s operational procedure then appears to possibly confuse or improperly conflate refusals to admit a student to school and student discipline by directing:


“Refusal to admit is not an alternative to school discipline. However, if a history of discipline exists and the behaviour of the student has not been corrected, it may be appropriate to issue a refusal to admit while interventions are put in place to minimize the risk of harm to the physical or mental well-being of pupils. In all instances like this consultation with the SOE and appropriate central staff must occur.”

9. Length of Refusal to Admit Should Be Specified and Constrained

As noted earlier, the Education Act does not limit how long a refusal to admit may continue. Some have gone on for months.

It is important for a School Board policy to set time limits for a refusal to admit, with a process for considering how to extend them if necessary. Most School Board policies and procedures that the AODA Alliance obtained do not do so.

A refusal to admit should not be indefinite. It should have a specified time limit.Flying in the face of this, many if not most School Board policies set no time limit for refusals to admit a student to school, even a presumptive time limit. It is harmful for the Grand Erie District School Board to view them as simply open-ended. That Board’s policy sets out a template letter for a principal to send to a family when a student is excluded from school, that explicitly says that the student is excluded until further notice. That means that the exclusion from school is indefinite in length. The Grand Erie District School Board‘s template letter states:

“Pursuant to s.265(1)(m) of the Education Act, it is my duty to inform you that [name of student] is excluded from attending [name of school], or any other school of the Grand Erie District School Board until further notice.”

By far the best if not the only such policy or procedure that the AODA Alliance obtained on point is the TDSB’s operational policy which provides in material part:

“(a) A refusal to admit is not an indefinite measure, but put in place while a school principal works with the family, school staff and the appropriate central staff to find a viable solution for the student's return to appropriate educational programming….

(c) All refusal to admits will end no less than 5 consecutive school days after the refusal to admit was issued unless the Board can demonstrate that there are no


appropriate strategies or interventions that can be put in place to minimize the behaviour that is deemed to be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of pupils. If the refusal to admit is not rescinded the school principal, Superintendent of Education, appropriate central staff and the family will review the refusal to admit every 2 school days until the factors that necessitated the refusal to admit have been minimized or eliminated.”

In troubling contrast to that commendable policy, another School Board’s policy erroneously contemplates as appropriate without objection the possibility that a refusal to admit could extend a long time, even from the end of the spring term and into the start of the next school year. The Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board’s policy states:

“In some cases, the exclusion may overlap the end of one school year and the beginning of another school year, or may begin prior to entering school.”

10. Refusal to Admit a Student to School Only In Very Rare, Extreme Cases As a Last Resort

A refusal to admit a student to school should only be permitted in very rare, extreme cases, as a last resort, after considering or trying all less intrusive alternatives.

The Greater Essex County District School Board commendably restricts a refusal to admit a student to school to “extreme” situations. Its procedure states:

“Extreme behavioural concerns or safety issues having a detrimental impact on the physical or mental well-being of the students do arise from time to time and require an exclusion until more information is collected and appropriate programs and supports are in place in the school for the students.”

The AODA Alliance notes that unless the “extreme” behaviour is a total surprise, the investigation of possible supports for the student should have already taken place, and should not wait to start after the student has been ejected from school.

The Trillium Lakelands District School Board did not provide the AODA Alliance with a written policy or procedure addressing s. 265(1)(m) of the Act. However, in answering the AODA Alliance’s survey questions, that Board stated as its policy that refusals to admit a student to school are used in “very rare” circumstances:


“Refusal to admit under 265(1)(m) is used in very rare circumstances, and if enacted, is accompanied by a long term plan for student support, and re-entry criteria are put in place.”

In weaker but still somewhat helpful terms, less appropriate than “very rare”, the Peel District School Board proclaimed in its policy that a refusal to admit a student to school should only be in “rare” circumstances. Its policy states:

“However, in rare circumstances, the Board recognizes that to maintain the physical and/or mental well-being of students in a class or in a school(s), exclusion of a student may be necessary.”

The TDSB Policy on Caring and Safe Schools goes on to specify:

“6.8.3 Where a student with a disability (regardless if they have special education identification) engages in behaviour that affects the well- being of others and the school principal is contemplating issuing a refusal to admit the Board may be able to argue that to accommodate the student would cause undue hardship based on health and safety concerns, specifically, that the accommodation would pose a risk to public safety. However, the seriousness of the risk will be evaluated only after accommodations have been provided that are consistent with the student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) and only after appropriate precautions have been taken to mitigate the risk.”

It is important for a School Board to always take into account a student’s mitigating circumstances when deciding whether to refuse to admit a student to school. Many School Board policies do not state this. It is good that the Avon Maitland District School Board‘s policy does do so. It states:

“Each case must be considered individually and mmitigating circumstances need to be taken into consideration when determining if exclusion should take place.”

An exclusion from school should be a last resort. Any number of School Board policies do not require this. It is helpful that the Avon Maitland District School Board stipulates:

“The decision to exclude is a last resort and needs to be made in consultation with the appropriate Superintendent. Usually, the final decision is determined when the safety of the student or safety of others is extremely compromised.


However, it is not to be seen as a mechanism to “remove” the student from school without great effort from the administrator, school team and the parents to keep them in school and planning appropriate academic programs.”

Many School Board policies do not declare that a refusal to admit should be a last resort, that they should only occur when all other options are exhausted, and that the focus should be on returning the student to school as soon as possible. In contrast, TDSB’s operational procedure requires these criteria, stating:

“Pursuant to these rights and as a last resort, the issuance of a refusal to admit should only be used to support student safety and physical and mental well-being when all other interventions and strategies have been exhausted with the expressed intent to return the student to school as quickly as possible.”

11. Requiring a Tiered Approach to Decisions on Refusing to Admit a Student to School Should Be Required

It is important for a principal to be required to take a step-by-step tiered approach to deciding whether to refuse to admit a student to school. An illustration of this is in the Grand Erie District School Board policy, one which is not reflected in most other School Board policies or procedures that the AODA Alliance obtained. It states:

“The Principal and school team, in consultation with the Family of Schools Superintendent of Education, as well as the Superintendents of Education responsible for Special Education and Safe Schools, will use a tiered approach to decision making and consider the following: 1.1.3.1 Would suspension/expulsion meet the safety needs? 1.1.3.2 Has a modified day or week schedule been considered?

A modified day or week is a strategy used to support students who struggle to maintain safe behaviour at school for a full day or week. The intent of a modified day/week is to provide an opportunity for the student to end their day or week on a positive note, rather than a negative one, gradually extending their day or week based on success.When a modified day/week is being considered, parents/guardians will be invited to participate in a meeting to discuss the reasons for considering a modification, how the modification can support their child's success, and the plan for return to full day or full week. The modified


day/week will be documented in the IEP, ensuring that a monitoring plan for a return to full day/week is included.

1.1.3.3 Would a different space in the school meet the safety needs? 1.1.3.4 Would a different school in the Board meet the safety needs? 1.1.3.5 Would an off-site location in the Board meet the safety needs? 1.1.3.6 Would Home Instruction be an appropriate option to meet the safety needs?1.1.3.7 Would exclusion be an appropriate option to meet the safety needs?”

A policy or procedure should specify in further detail the steps that a School Board should attempt before a refusal to admit is considered or imposed. To that end, the TDSB’s operational procedure helpfully requires:

“Principals and Superintendents should consider the following strategies or interventions prior to issuing a refusal to admit (this list is not exhaustive): (i) Can the student's presence that is detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of pupils be minimized by:

Reviewing and modifying the programming related to the students learning profile Reassigning staff within the school Temporarily relocating the student within the school Temporarily assign appropriate staff to the school Providing a program at an alternative location such as another school or appropriate Board location.”

An additional helpful requirement is found in the Durham District School Board’s procedure, which requires in substance that a refusal to admit be as narrowly tailored as possible. It states:

“Exclusions shall be as minimal as is reasonably possible under the circumstances. (e.g., avoiding exclusion for a full day where a partial day would suffice, or exclusion from school when a classroom exclusion would suffice.)”

12. School Board’s Duty To Consult and Explore All Other Avenues Before Deciding on a Refusal to Admit

It is helpful where some School Board policies do not simply leave it to the principal to unilaterally decide to refuse to admit a student to school. Some contact with or approval of a


higher authority with the School Board is required. An example of a stronger requirement for such is in the TDSB policy on Caring and Safe Schools, which provides:

“Determination for issuing a refusal to admit will include an analysis of alternative options developed in consultation with appropriate senior and central staff (i.e., Superintendent of Education, Centrally Assigned Principals for Caring and Safe Schools and Special Education) as well as the student’s parents/guardians.”

The TDSB’s new operational procedure goes further, requiring these steps before a principal can refuse to admit a student to school:

“(a) For a refusal to admit to be issued, consultation with the learning network Superintendent of Education (SOE) and appropriate central staff (as detailed below) must occur.(b) Persons engaging in behaviour that affects the well-being of other pupils (regardless if they have a special education identification) and where the school principal is contemplating issuing a refusal to admit, the Board may be able to argue that to accommodate the persons, it would cause undue hardship based on health and safety concerns, specifically, that the accommodation would pose a risk to public safety. The Principal must provide evidence of undue hardship arising from 'bona fide' health and safety concerns by admitting certain persons into the school or classroom.(c) The principal and superintendent must hold a meeting or conference call with all appropriate staff to ensure that an analysis has occurred that includes a variety of viewpoints to ensure that alternative options to a refusal to admit have occurred. Parent/guardian/caregiver partnership is important to this process and must occur as part of this consultation.”

TDSB’s operational procedure also includes this safeguard:

“A principal may issue a refusal to admit in the following circumstances: …(ii)When a risk management review meeting (PR. 699) has been held for a student with special education needs and the use of 265(1)(m) has been recommended as a means to ensure a student's continued presence at the school is not detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of pupils (Consultation with the Learning Centre Centrally Assigned Principal for Special Education and SOE is required.)”


In addition, TDSB’s operational procedure sets this important precondition to a principal deciding to refuse to admit a student to school:

“For students with special education needs, the TDSB is required to accommodate in the provision of educational services and ensure that all modifications, accommodations and/or alternative programming, whether set out in the IEP of not, have been implemented prior to issuing a refusal to admit.”

Moreover:

“As a means to ensure a student's continued presence at the school is not detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of pupils when dealing with intrusive sexualized behaviour (PR 608) (Consultation with Manager of Social Work, SOE and Caring and Safe Schools is required.)”

TDSB’s operational policy also clearly reiterates:

“Where a student's behaviour is in the judgement of the school principal detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of pupils all other interventions and strategies have been exhausted. (Consultation with the SOE and appropriate central staff is required.)”

13. School Board’s Duty to Meet with Parents Before Imposing a Refusal to Admit

It is important for the School Board to have a mandatory meeting with the family before a refusal to admit is imposed. To this end, the Durham District School Board’s procedure commendably requires that:

“(i) The Principal and/or the S.O./A.O. shall meet with the student’s parent(s) and advise of the school’s intention to exclude the child. The parent(s) may be informed of the following: (a) The reasons for the exclusion.(b) Notice that the exclusion will continue pending the achievement of the expected demonstrated outcomes, with explanations or clarification of the outcomes themselves and why the Board deems them to be a requirement.(c) Assurance that once the student’s outcomes have been demonstrated, the child will be transitioned back to the school in a positive manner.


(d) An outline by the Principal of the plans for educational programming or homework that will be provided to the child during the period of exclusion.(e) Information that a subsequent meeting day will be set within a reasonable timeframe where the Principal and parent(s) will review progress and discuss a re-entry plan for the student.(f) All of the preceding points should also be provided to the parent in writing in the form of a letter from the Principal. Both the Principal and the S.O. should sign the letter (Refer to Procedure: Code of Conduct, and Discipline for Students – Appendix E-1).”

14. Duty to Notify Parents In writing of a Refusal to Admit

Several Boards commendably require a principal to send a letter to the parents of a student whom they refused to admit to school, with the reason for the exclusion. Other Boards require the principal to send a letter, but erroneously do not require the principal to set out in the letter a specific reason for the decision to exclude the student, beyond reciting the power to do so in s. 265(1)(m).

It is good that the Peel District School Board requires the written notification to be signed by the Director of Education if the student is to be excluded from all schools in the Board. The Peel District School Board’s policy states:

“If exclusion is for all schools in the Board, then Director of Education also signs”

It is also helpful that the Halton District School Board’s administrative procedure requires that all letters on any refusal to admit be co-signed by a senior official, and not only the school principal, as follows:

“The Family of Schools Superintendent must be consulted and co-sign the letter of exclusion supporting the temporary exclusion. The Family of Schools Superintendent will ensure the Principal’s decision to exclude was made in good faith, i.e. only where safety concerns are genuine and that all reasonable interventions and preventative plans were developed and properly implemented.”

Of those Boards that require this written notification, some but not all set out template letters for doing so. Of those, the template letters vary on how much information the principal must provide. For example, TDSB’s operational policy states in part:


“(a) Once consultation has occurred and the principal has determined it is appropriate to refuse to admit a student, a letter outlining the principal's decision as well as requirements for the student's return must be sent to the parent/guardian/caregiver or adult student. This letter will also contain information on how to appeal the Principal's decision to issue a refusal to admit.”

Moreover, among other things, TDSB’s template letters specifically notify the parents or student of the School Board’s duty to provide ongoing education for the student while excluded from school. Those letter templates include:

“Homework will be provided for you/student name for the duration of this refusal to admit. A homework package is presently available for pick up and I will continue to communicate with you regarding more work being made available. A Caring and Safe Schools program will also be made available for you/student name to ensure minimal disruption to your educational programming.”

According to the Peel District School Board policy, the letter announcing the refusal to admit must include the following:

“The letter should reflect: a. the behaviour putting the student’s and/or or students’ safety at risk; b. reference to section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act; c. steps to be taken to facilitate the student’s safe and successful return to school; d. the right to appeal to the Board of Trustees and contact information for the Superintendent of Education to whom the notice of intent to appeal is to be delivered; e. reference to the ongoing education to be provided during the period of the exclusion.”

15. Duty to Provide Alternative Education to a Student While Excluded from School”

It is vital for a School Board to be required to provide effective means for an excluded student to continue to get an education while excluded from school. This is needed in fulfilment of the student’s right to an education. School Boards now have ample experience in how to do this, after three months of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Some School Boards have policies requiring that an excluded student be assured effective ways to continue their education while excluded from school. Others do not.

The Halton District School Board administrative procedure requires:

“In conjunction with the teacher(s), the Principal must arrange to have schoolwork prepared and provided to the student for the duration of the exclusion.”

Going further, the policy of the Ottawa Catholic School Board expands to include at least the possibility of home instruction for a student while excluded from school, stating:

“The Principal will arrange for schoolwork to be sent home for the duration of the exclusion and/or to be completed at an agreeable offsite location if the safety of staff and others can be reasonably ensured.The Principal may recommend home instruction by a qualified educator and/or educational assistant take place during the exclusion if the safety of staff and others can be reasonably ensured. Where home instruction is offered, the Principal will cancel the home instruction if the safety of staff or others becomes a concern.”

Separate from their policy, the Peel District School Board’s written answer to the AODA Alliance’s survey has perhaps the strongest language in this context, requiring:

“When a student is excluded, a certified teacher provides instruction at home for the length of the exclusion.“

The Upper Canada District School Board‘s policy adds:

“Should a principal believe that a temporary exclusion of a student is necessary for the safety of others, the principal will:

(a) consider the length and nature of the exclusion and develop a learning plan to support elements related to the student’s educational program;…”

That policy also includes:

“It is expected that the principal will maintain regular contact with parent/guardians, (or, with the student, if the student is an adult) during the


exclusion and is to ensure that the learning plan remains purposeful for the student under exclusion by committing to periodic review.”

The Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board‘s policy states:

“While the student is excluded from school, the school is still responsible to provide an educational program for that student. Schools will consult with the student (where appropriate), the parents and the Family of Schools Superintendent to explore options for alternative programming which could include out of school instruction or e-learning.”

TDSB policy requires that any student excluded from school by a refusal to admit, must be offered alternative education programming. TDSB’s policy states:

“All students who are refused admittance to their school will be offered a program through Caring and Safe Schools.”

16. Duty of Principal to Work with Family Well Before a Refusal to Admit is Decided Upon

It is also important for a principal to be required to work with a student and their family on issues well before it degenerates to the point of considering a refusal to admit. The Grand Erie District School Board‘s policy states:

“The Principal must make a family aware of the possibility of exclusion as early as that option presents itself; in the interest of cooperation, exclusion must never be a surprise.”

17. Duty of School Board to Work with the Family During Period of an Exclusion from School

If a student is excluded from school, the School Board should be under a strong duty to work with the student and family to get them back to school as soon as possible. To that end, it is helpful that the Avon Maitland District School Board provides:

“In order to fulfill the conditions as set out on the exclusion letter, the co-operation and partnership of the parent/guardian is critical; the principal is key to making this relationship strong and positive. While the parent/guardian has the option to appeal as noted in the Education Act, the purpose of the exclusion is to have time to appropriately plan the educational program and ensure student safety based on information available. Clear and concise communication


is needed to ensure that the team, including the parent/guardian, is moving toward the same goal.”

It is also helpful that the Greater Essex County District School Board’s procedure requires:

“While the student is excluded, ongoing efforts must be undertaken to facilitate the student’s return to school as quickly as possible.Steps to Facilitate Re-EntryWhen considering exclusion, steps to facilitate return must be identified in the exclusion letter. The steps must be reasonable, realistic and in the best interest of the student and must be directly related to the provision of educational services. In some cases, the steps can be modified as more information, for example a report from a doctor, is received. The principal is required to maintain communication with the parent/guardian throughout the exclusion period.”

It also provides:

“Principals are required to document their ongoing contact with the parent/guardian regarding the status of the student and the steps that have been taken on a regular basis in order to facilitate the student’s return to school as quickly as possible.”

18. Duty to Hold a Re-entry Meeting with the Family

A School Board that excludes a student from school should be required to hold a re-entry meeting with the student and family to transition to the return to school. Some School Board policies mandate this. Others do not.

The Halton District School Board requires the Board to hold a re-entry meeting with the family when the conditions for return to school have been met. This in turn shows that the Board’s staff are required to have set terms for return to school. The Halton District School Board’s administrative procedure states:

“Once the terms for re-entry have been met, the Principal of the school and any additional staff are to conduct a re-entry meeting with the family of the excluded student prior to re-entry.”


19. Monitoring and Public Reporting

For a School Board to have in place and readily available for the public a well-written and progressive policy and procedure on refusals to admit a student to school is helpful and important. However, that provides no assurance that the policy and procedure will be properly followed and enforced.

The vast majority of School Board policies or procedures that the AODA Alliance obtained include little or no effective monitoring, enforcement or public accountability for the School Board’s use of the power to refuse to admit a student to school.

For example, the AODA Alliance survey asked School Boards for the numbers of students that each School Board has refused to admit to school. The vast majority of School Boards either did not answer the AODA Alliance survey at all, or did not provide an answer to this question. As such, there is scant evidence that many if not most School Boards track this information within their own Board.

Moreover, the Ministry of Education historically has not required School Boards to track a student’s absence from school due to a refusal to admit. That could have been done by requiring teachers to use a unique attendance code to mark the absence of a student who misses classes because they have been refused permission to come to school. Instead, the Ministry required School Boards to mark such absences with a “G” code, which is also used for other reasons for being absent from school.

The Near North District School Board told the AODA Alliance in writing that it does not track the number of students that are subject to a refusal to admit to school. In contrast, TDSB’s operational policy provides for this important need, stating:

“When a refusal to admit has been issued the school Principal must ensure that a student's attendance record reflects that they are absent due to a refusal to admit. This absence must be recorded with a "G" absence code on the daily attendance record and must specify the reason as "refusal to admit". This absence code and reason must be recorded for annual tracking an auditing purposes.”

Many if not most School Board policies or procedures do not require the retention of documents on a student’s refusal to admit. In contrast, the strongest positive requirement is found in the TDSB’s operational policy which provides:


“The following documentation must be retained for audit purposes: Documentation of successful notification of exclusion and the response between the School Board and the pupil (if the pupil is an adult) or the pupil's parent or guardian, documentation of the plan (signed by the principal) to re-integrate the pupil into the education system, documentation of communication with other parties involved with re-engaging the pupil, and data on the number of students who have been excluded during the school year (including the name of student, OEN, length of exclusion, and reason for exclusion).”

TDSB’s operational procedure also requires:

“Upon the student's return to appropriate educational programming, the school principal will send a letter to reflect the refusal to admit no longer being in effect. Principals should refer to Appendix E or Appendix F for a template letter.…All refusals to admit will be properly documented and reported to the appropriate Learning Centre Executive Superintendent. Consolidated reports on refusals to admit will be provided to Executive Council on a quarterly basis.

Determinations regarding refusal to admit as well as reviews of the status will involve staff overseeing implementation of the Equity Policy and the Integrated Equity Framework.”

20. Duty of a School Board to Periodically Review and Update Its Policy or Procedure on Refusals to Admit

It is important for any policy or procedure in this area to be periodically reviewed and updated. Most School Board policies or procedures that the AODA Alliance obtained do not require this. TDSB’s operational procedure commendably requires:

“7.0 EVALUATION This operational procedure will be reviewed as required, but at a minimum every four (4) years after the effective date.”


21. Duty to Ensure that Appeals to the School Board Trustees from a Refusal to Admit Are Fair

(i) General

Section 265(1)(m) requires that a student who is excluded from school be afforded a right to appeal to the Board of Trustees for that School Board. It is important that these appeals be fair.

Some School Boards have policies or procedures governing the appeal process. These policies arbitrarily vary from Board to Board. A student or family bringing an appeal at one School Board can unfairly face an appeal procedure that is quite different than a student or family bringing the same appeal at a different School Board.

(ii) Time Lines for Filing Appeals

Some School Boards unfairly impose very tight timelines on when a student or family can file an appeal. This is especially unfair since the student or family may not know about their appeal rights. They may well be in crisis due to the student’s exclusion from school. They may not have access to a lawyer. They should be able to appeal at any time that the refusal to admit continues.

As an example, the Avon Maitland District School Board’s policy unfairly provides:

“A person who intends to appeal an exclusion must give written notice of their intention to appeal the exclusion within ten (10) school days of the commencement of the exclusion.”

In contrast, the TDSB appeal policy commendably sets no such deadline. The TDSB operational procedure also does not set any limitation period. It states:

“All refusals to admits are subject to appeal from the moment they are issued.” There is no good reason why an excluded student should have any fewer safeguards in the appeal process than a student who is subjected to discipline. The Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board commendably provides in its policy on point that the appeal process for a refusal to admit is the same as for appeals from student discipline. That is good, so long as that appeal procedure is a fair one. That Board’s policy states as follows:

“The appeal process is the same as suspensions and expulsions.”


(iii) Time Limits Imposed on The Appeal Hearing

No School Board should set an arbitrary length of time that the appeal hearing can run. The appeal should take as long as needed for a fair hearing.

Flying in the face of this, the Greater Essex County District School Board wrongly sets an arbitrary 75 minute maximum on the length of the appeal. Its policy states:

“3. The Committee will convene within 15 school days of the receipt of the notice of the intent to appeal unless parties agree to a later deadline. This meeting shall be scheduled for no longer than 75 minutes.”

Another example of unfair time limits during an appeal in this area is the direction in the Simcoe County District School Board’s Exclusion Appeal policy. Section 265(1)(m) requires that there be an appeal process from a refusal to admit a student to school. On an appeal to the Board of Trustees for the Simcoe County District School Board, the parent or student only has 15 minutes to argue their appeal. After that, the School Board staff can take up to 15 minutes to explain why the refusal to admit should continue. After that, the parent or student bringing the appeal only gets 5 minutes to respond.

This is contrary to the School Board’s duty to be fair and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. Moreover, it is fundamentally unfair to restrict the student or their family to only 15 minutes to make their case. They should get the time they need to fully present their case. This is the only hearing that they are assured under the outdated Education Act provision governing refusals to admit a student to school.

TDSB’s appeal policy also wrongly imposes arbitrary and unfair time limits on how long the student or parents may speak. The TDSB appeal policy provides:

“8.10 The principal shall have approximately 10 minutes to address the Board of Trustees orally and to provide an outline of the reasons and circumstances for the exclusion.8.11 The appellant shall have approximately 20 minutes to address the Board of Trustees orally and to provide reasons why the exclusion should be lifted.8.12 The principal shall have approximately 15 minutes to orally provide reasons why the exclusion should continue, and may respond to any issues raised by the appellant.


8.13 The appellant shall have a further approximately 5 minutes to orally respond to any new issues raised by the principal that were not previously addressed by the appellant.”

As a partial accommodation, but insufficient to ensure fairness, TDSB’s appeal policy would let the Board of trustee vary any appeal rules. A student or parent bringing an appeal may not know until the middle of the hearing whether they will get a time extension. The TDSB appeal policy also states:

“The Board of Trustees may allow for additional time for the presentations of either the appellant or principal or both, including when the appellant is assisted by a translator, to ensure that the information received by the Board of Trustees is complete and understood.”

(iv) Who Presents First at the Appeal Hearing, The School Board or the Parents Bringing the Appeal?

It is unfair for the family or student to have to present their argument about why the student should be allowed back in school before the School Board staff have explained during the appeal hearing why the denial of the student’s right to go to school should continue. Basic fairness provides that the family and student should know the case they must answer before they must answer it. The School Board staff are in a unique position to know their own justification for continuing to exclude the student from their right to an education.

In contrast to that Board’s unfair policy, The Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario (Eastern Ontario French Public School Board) has a better policy that properly provides that on such an appeal, the School Board staff will speak first, giving the reasons for the exclusion from school. The TDSB appeal policy also commendably makes the principal, and not the family or student, go first. That is much fairer.

(v) Right to a Speedy Appeal Hearing and Decision

Different School Boards give different protections for a student and their family to get a speedy hearing on their appeal. It is important that such appeals be held quickly, since the student is languishing at home while they are waiting for the appeal.

The Eastern Ontario French Public School Board’s policy requires that a hearing must be held within 30 days after the exclusion notice, if an appeal is filed. The Board must render its decision in writing within seven days after the hearing of the appeal.


The Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board’s superior policy sets a shorter deadline for the hearing. Its policy states:

“the Board) must hear and/or determine the appeal within fifteen (15) school days of receiving the notice of intention to appeal (unless the parties agree to an extension).”

The Near North District School Board sets the strictest time lines that the AODA Alliance found for a hearing and decision on an appeal. The Near North District School Board policy states:

“The Board of Trustees shall hear and determine the appeal within 15 school days of receiving the notice of appeal, unless the parties agree on a later deadline.”

The TDSB policy for appeals from refusals to admit a student to school is unjustifiably more vague on the hearing’s timing. That policy merely requires:

“There are no timelines pursuant to the Act that dictate when the exclusion must be heard; however, in circumstances where a student has not been admitted to another school or program providing education, efforts should be made to schedule the appeal in a timely manner.”

The TDSB appeal policy is also less prescriptive on when a decision must be rendered and communicated on an appeal. The TDSB appeal policy states:

“The Board of Trustees shall confer and shall provide the appellant and principal with an oral decision at the earliest opportunity, which shall be followed by a decision in writing within 15 school days, or such other time as the Board or Trustees deems appropriate in the circumstances.”

(vi) Right of the Student or Their Family to Present Evidence

The Ottawa Catholic School Board’s policy has a seriously problematic ban on the parties to an appeal presenting any witnesses. This is a clear violation of the student’s and family’s right to procedural fairness, and their rights under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The policy categorically states:

“The parties shall not be entitled to present witnesses before the Committee and there shall be no cross-examination.”


(vii) Burden and Standard of Proof on the Appeal

A Board of trustees, hearing an appeal from a refusal to admit, should consider whether the School Board has justified the student’s initial exclusion from school and its continuation. The burden should be on the School Board to justify the exclusion from school. The burden not on the student or their family to prove that the student should be allowed back at school. This is because the student has a right to attend school, and the School Board has a human rights duty to accommodate that student. As well, the School Board is in a substantially stronger position, having more resources and access to vastly more information. Yet, contrary to this, the Ottawa Catholic School Board’s policy erroneously only requires the Board of trustees to consider if the exclusion is “reasonable.” That is a lower standard. It erroneously does not assign the burden of proof to the School Board. The Ottawa Catholic School Board’ policy states:

“The Committee will consider, based on the representations of both parties, whether the exclusion is reasonable in the circumstances, and shall either: confirm the exclusion; or quash the exclusion”

The TDSB appeal policy wrongly places the burden of proof on the appellant, I.e the parent or student. That policy states:

“In an appeal of a principal’s decision to exclude an individual pursuant to section 265(1)(m), the appellant shall bear the onus of proof.”

Even worse, the TDSB policy requires the parent or student, bringing the appeal to show that the exclusion from school was not “reasonable”. It should be sufficient to show that the exclusion was simply wrong. As a term of art, the “reasonableness” standard can be harder for the parent or student to meet. The TDSB appeal policy states:

“The appellant must show that the decision by the principal to impose the exclusion was not reasonable and therefore, should not be upheld.”

(viii) Who Hears the Appeal, The entire Board of Trustees or Just a Committee of Some Trustees?

Different School Boards have arbitrarily set different rules on whether an appeal is heard by the entire Board of trustees, or only a committee of some of the Board’s members. The appeal should be heard by the entire Board of trustees.


The Halton District School Board’s administrative procedure commendably requires the entire Board of trustees to hear the appeal. It takes the position that this is what s. 265(1)(m) of the Education Act requires. That administrative procedure states:

“The full Board of Trustees will hear exclusion appeals as required by Section 265 (1) (m) of the Education Act and in accordance with the Exclusion Appeal Process.”

In contrast, the Eastern Ontario French Public School Board policy unjustifiably requires the appeal to be heard by a committee of only three trustees, not the entire Board. Its policy states:

En l’absence d’un règlement entre les parties, le Conseil nomme trois (3) de ses membres pour former un Comité d’appel de l’exclusion scolaire (« le Comité »). Le Comité tient une audience d’appel au plus tard trente (30) jours après l’émission de l’avis d’exclusion.

And, according to our translation, that reads as:

“In the absence of a settlement between the parties, the Council appoints three (3) of its members to form a School Exclusion Appeal Committee ("the Committee"). The Committee will hold an appeal hearing no later than thirty (30) days after the issuance of the exclusion notice.”

(ix) School Board’s Duty to Try to Resolve Issues in Advance of the Appeal

Some policies commendably impose on the School Board a duty to try to resolve the issue if the student, excluded from school, or their family file an appeal under section 265(1)(m) to the Board of trustees. The Ottawa Catholic School Board’s policy includes:

“Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the Director of Education or Designate will:promptly advise the Principal and the Family of Schools Superintendent of the receipt of a notice of appeal;provide a copy of the notice of appeal to the Principal and Family of Schools Superintendent;acknowledge receipt of the Appellant’s notice of appeal and invite the Appellant to contact the Director of Education or Designate to discuss any matter respecting the incident and/or appeal of the exclusion; and convene a facilitation meeting between the Appellant, the Principal and the Family of Schools Superintendent with a view of resolving the appeal.


In the absence of a resolution, the Director of Education or Designate shall commence the Exclusion Appeal process to review the exclusion as soon as reasonably possible, but no longer than thirty (30) school days from the date of receiving the Appeal. The Parties may extend the above timeline by mutual agreement.”

While this is worthwhile, it is far better for such efforts to be required before the refusal to admit is decided upon and takes place.

TDSB’s appeal policy commendably requires the holding of a pre-appeal meeting, to try to resolve issues, narrow issues, or smooth the procedure leading to the argument of the appeal. TDSB’s appeal policy states:

“Prior to the meeting before the Board of Trustees for the appeal, a pre-appeal conference meeting shall be scheduled by the Registrar of the Board to take place in person or electronically.

(a) The participants in the pre-appeal conference shall be the parties to the exclusion appeal, the Chair of the Board (or designate), the superintendent of education for the school (or designate) and the Registrar to the Board (or designate).

(b) The Chair of the Board (or designate) shall chair the pre-appeal conference meeting. The chair of the pre-appeal conference shall not participate in deciding the appeal without the consent of the parties.

The chair of the pre-appeal meeting can canvas his/her ability to participate in the appeal during the meeting.

i. review the facts, identify the issues that have given rise to the exclusion and the appeal of the exclusion;ii. arrange for the disclosure of information;iii. arrange for the disclosure of the Principal’s Report;iv. arrange for the disclosure of the Appellant’s Report, if any;v. canvass whether or not there is an opportunity to create an agreed statement of facts, and if so, the dates for its creation, exchange and filing with the Registrar of the Board;


vi. canvass whether or not a mutually agreeable resolution of the appeal can be effected;vii. determine whether any further pre-appeal conferences might be required; andviii. canvass and address any other matter that might assist in ensuring a smooth and timely appeal.

The pre-appeal conference provides an opportunity to organize the steps that must take place before the appeal before the trustees, including answering the appellant’s questions regarding process and attempting to identify and resolve issues that might detract from the issues on appeal, and attempting to settle the appeal.”

TDSB’s appeal policy also commendably provides:

“5.5 If no resolution of the exclusion appeal is effected during the pre-appeal conference meeting, a pre-appeal conference report shall be provided to the parties by the Registrar of the Board (or designate); a copy of the pre-appeal conference report shall also be provided to the Board of Trustees for the appeal.

(a) The pre-appeal conference report shall identify the following:i. the issues that have given rise to the exclusion and the appeal of the exclusion;ii. whether or not an agreed statement of facts can be generated for the benefit of the Board of Trustees, and if so, the timeline for its creation, exchange and filing with the Registrar of the Board;iii. the date for disclosure of information in addition to an agreed statement of facts or as an alternative to an agreed statement of facts;iv. the disclosure of the Principal’s Report and disclosure of the Appellant’s Report, if any;v. any other issues identified and resolved during the pre-appeal conference; andix [sic]. the date, time and place for the appeal.

The pre-appeal report will provide a brief synopsis of the matters addressed during the pre-appeal conference and any decisions made regarding such issues. The report is not intended to reflect


each party’s position regarding the various issues, nor is it intended to provide a complete history or background of events leading up to the exclusion appeal. The report should focus on procedural issues to assist the appeal process to occur smoothly.”

As well, the TDSB appeal policy commendably requires:

“The pre-appeal conference process will assist to identify whether or not the appellant will prepare a report as well as what documents, if any, the appellant will want the trustees to have in order to make a decision regarding the appeal. The pre-appeal conference will identify timelines in which the appellant must provide copies of the documents upon which the appellant wishes to rely and will also identify the consequences of failing to provide those documents.”

Finally, to ensure fairness, it is good that the TDSB appeal policy stipulates:

“The Chair of the Board (or designate) shall chair the appeal. The chair of the pre-appeal conference meeting shall not participate in deciding the appeal without the consent of the parties.”

Some Board policies or procedures commendably require the School Board to prepare a report on the refusal to admit before the appeal is heard. As one example, the TDSB appeal policy requires:

“6.1 The principal shall prepare a report for the Board of Trustees. The report will be provided to the appellant and Registrar of the Board in accordance with the date for the disclosure of information identified in the pre-appeal conference report.

(a) The Principal’s Report shall form part of the principal’s disclosure and shall provide information regarding the reasons and circumstances of the exclusion.

(b) The Principal’s Report shall reference and include as appendices all documents upon which the principal intends to rely during the appeal.

The Principal’s Report is a form of disclosure, so that the trustees and appellant appreciate why the exclusion was imposed. In many


circumstances the documentation supporting the reason for the exclusion is voluminous and cannot be effectively reviewed by the trustees during the appeal. The Principal’s Report provides a synopsis of the reason for the exclusion and will assist to put the documentation into a context. Each Principal’s Report would be tailored to the individual circumstances of the exclusion. Although, each Principal’s Report will have common elements, the students educational history, the programming and services that have been provided to the student, the behaviours giving rise to the exclusion, the attempts made to accommodate the student etc.; the details will vary depending upon the individual circumstances.”

(x) Should a Refusal to Admit Stain a Student’s Official School Record OSR?

The Halton District School Board’s administrative procedure commendably protects a student from having a refusal to admit letter being included in the student’s official school file. It states:

“The letter of exclusion is not to be filed in the Student’s OSR.“

Contradicting that commendable approach, the Avon Maitland District School Board appears to unjustifiably require that documentation of a refusal to admit should be included in a student’s official student file OSR. Its policy states:

“9 Write the re-entry letter (Form 358B) and copy recipients as outlined in the letter; and 9.10 Copies of all documentation and correspondence related to the exclusion should be returned in the documentation folder of the OSR.”

VI. What Conclusions Follow from This Report’s Findings?

Several important conclusions follow from the foregoing.

No School Board policy or procedure on refusals to admit a student to school has specified a fact situation when, if ever, a student should properly be excluded from school under section 265(1)(m), by delineating circumstances where there is no other way to effectively address the situation. If section 265(1)(m) is to be kept in the Education Act at all (which is worthy of


debate), it should be revised to narrow this power. Mandatory safeguards should be built into this provision to help protect against its unfair and arbitrary use.

Students and their families around Ontario should not face a patchwork of arbitrary differences from one School Board to the next, when it comes to a right as basic as a student’s right to go to school. If, despite this, the Education Act is going to retain the power to refuse to admit a student to school, with or without reform, there is a pressing need for the Ontario Government to now issue a detailed, clear, and mandatory direction to all Ontario School Boards, such as a Policy/Program Memorandum (PPM) specifically on refusals to admit. Students and their families around Ontario should not face a patchwork of arbitrary differences from one School Board to the next, when it comes to a right as basic as a student’s right to go to school.

That new PPM should now specify in detail:

(i) how, when and why a principal may refuse to admit a student to school (including due process protections for the student and their family),(ii) limits on the length of a refusal to admit,(iii) fair procedures for appeals from a refusal to admit,(iv) procedures for transitioning to return to school as soon as possible, and what the School Board must do to monitor, enforce and publicly account for the use of this drastic power.

The Government should not continue to leave it to each School Board to itself decide, if it wishes to do so, whether to have a policy on refusals to admit a student to school, and if so, what that policy should include, and if so, how easy or hard it will be for the public (including students and their families) to find an accessible copy of that policy.

The principal’s power to refuse to admit a student to school is especially well-suited for a policy direction from the Ministry of Education to School Boards in the form of a PPM. As shown earlier in this report, the Ministry has previously addressed refusals to admit a student to school under s. 265(1)(m) in PPM 145, most recently revised in Fall 2018, albeit still only in a single paragraph. In contrast, the Ministry filled as much as 26 pages of that same PPM with detailed directions on the use of a School Board’s power to impose discipline on a student, such as a suspension or expulsion. Both refusals to admit and student discipline equally cry out for and lend themselves to detailed provincial policy directions.

The fact that some School Boards have a policy on when and how a school principal can refuse to admit a student to school demonstrates that this is a proper subject for such a policy. The


fact that some Boards have a detailed policy, and not just one or two pages on this subject, shows that such is also doable and appropriate. Drawing on the policies in place at some Boards, it is appropriate for the Ministry to require the specific commendable ingredients in some School Board policies and procedures that are detailed earlier in this report.

The Ministry of Education cannot justify a failure to implement a comprehensive series of requirements for refusals to admit a student to school on the grounds that each School Board should be free to assess and address their local needs. The Ministry often reflexively and mechanistically invokes that mantra when trying to justify a failure to take province-wide action on an issue.

That Ministry mantra does not fit here. First, the needs of students and families, facing the trauma of a refusal to admit to school, are in the same position across Ontario. They need and deserve the same rights when dealing with something as traumatic as being excluded from school. Basic, inalienable rights, such as the right to an education, human rights protection, fairness and due process do not and should not vary from Windsor, to Cornwall, to Moosonee.

In the context of eliminating racial bias from the education system, the Ministry of Education has shown itself willing and able to give directions to a School Board on the use of its power to refuse to admit students to school. It should be equally ready to do so for students with disabilities. The Ministry of Education has very recently given directions to the Peel District School Board to keep and report data on exclusions of students from school by race. In Directive Number 9, the Ministry stipulated that:

“The Board shall centrally track disaggregated race-based data on suspensions (in-school and out-of-school), expulsions and exclusions, and report publicly through the Annual Equity Accountability Report Card.”

If the Ministry of Education continues to leave it to each School Board to decide if that Board will even adopt a policy on refusals to admit a student to school, this report shows that a clear majority of School Boards will adopt no policy, or will not provide a copy of their policy. This is so even when School Boards are separately asked for their policy twice over two years, and even if the School Boards ‘ Directors of Education secure independent legal advice on the request for information about their Boards’ policies and practices at the taxpayer’s expense.

There is a pressing need for such policies to be public, and easily available for the public to see. This is especially so, Given the serious issues at play when a refusal to admit a student to school occurs, implicating a student’s human rights and the right to an education. Of the School Boards

LINK:


that have any form of policy or procedure on this subject, only a fraction of them agreed to simply give a copy of that policy or procedure to the AODA Alliance on request, even when asked twice. Of the policies or procedures that the AODA Alliance was able to get, a clear majority of them had to be found by AODA Alliance volunteers probing around various School Board websites.

For a clear majority of Ontario School Boards, there is a disturbing lack of public accountability on how they are using and will permit school principals to use the drastic power to refuse to admit a student to school. The fact that the AODA Alliance, a volunteer non-partisan disability coalition, had to go to the lengths it did to uncover the information documented in this report, illustrates a troubling lack of public accountability at the School Board level. This is made all the more troubling by a similarly troubling lack of proper oversight demonstrated by the Ontario Government in this area. There is no indication that across Ontario, there is a consistent and reliable process in place to ensure accountability of individual School Boards or school principals in their use of the power to refuse to admit a student to school. As publicly-funded government agencies, their practices should be far more open, accessible and transparent, especially when they bear directly on the right of vulnerable students to get an education. For example, the Ontario Government could have required each School Board to file its policy and procedure on refusals to admit with the Ministry of Education. The Ministry could have reviewed these to ensure that they are sufficient and that they are effectively implemented and enforced. This should not have fallen to a grassroots volunteer community coalition like the AODA Alliance. Had the Government asked these School Boards the questions that were in the AODA Alliance survey, it is reasonable to expect that the School Boards would have fully answered.

Further impeding effective public accountability, for those School Boards that have a policy or procedure on refusals to admit, these are not necessarily posted online. When posted online, these can be quite hard to find. Moreover, they are too often only posted in PDF format. That format is known to present accessibility problems.

The fact that some School Boards responded to the AODA Alliance survey demonstrates that School Boards can do so, and that it is reasonable to ask them to do so, without having to submit a Research Committee application or a Freedom of Information request.

This lack of public accountability hurts vulnerable students who are subjected to a refusal to admit a student to school, and their parents or guardians. A parent or guardian faces a difficult and traumatic experience when a child is excluded from attending school. If the parents or guardians do not have immediate childcare available, they may have to miss work. They need


to know their rights and options. Yet if the Board’s policy or procedure on refusals to admit a student to school is difficult or impossible to find, this further amplifies their vulnerability.

There is no consistent province-wide practice of School Boards tracking why, when or how often school principals use their power to refuse to admit a student to school. There is no consistent practice of School Boards making public any results they do obtain, if any are collected. Therefore, the public has no way to know across Ontario how often or why students are refused their fundamental right to go to school. This is largely left on a province-wide basis behind a wall of secrecy.

The need for provincial intervention is even more pressing since the issue regarding refusals to admit a student to school has been in the public spotlight for a year and a half or more. It is even more pressing because of the COVID-19 pandemic, as addressed further below.

VII. The Pressing Need for Reform In Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

The need to reform practices regarding a principal’s power to refuse to admit a student to school for part or all of the school day has become even more pressing in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ministry of Education now requires each School Board to submit a plan to the Ministry on the Board’s proposed arrangements for school re-opening this fall. The AODA Alliance has seen no indication that the Ministry requires that those plans include any policy or plans regarding the use of a principal’s power to refuse to admit a student to school during school re-openings.

Based on past experience, and the lack of proper provincial directions and School Board policies across Ontario on point, there is a real and serious risk that some principals will feel at liberty to use the power to refuse to admit a student to school in order to exclude some students with disabilities from school during school re-openings in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before a vaccine is available.

This is particularly so if School Boards do not now effectively plan for the inclusion and accommodation of students with disabilities at school during the transition to school re-opening. Some principals may do so either because they don’t know how to accommodate some students with disabilities during social distancing, or because the Ontario Government and/or their School Board has not given them the staffing, directions and resources they need to effectively include and accommodate those students at school.

There is a great deal of understandable and disturbing uncertainty and anxiety regarding the eventual transition back to school., A principal can be expected to feel a real temptation to use


the power to refuse to admit some students with disabilities to school during a COVID-19 school re-opening. This is so because it would seem to solve the problem of having to plan for those students’ needs at school, or because the principal or staff do not know what else to do, or because the School Board or the Ontario Government have not properly planned to meet the needs of those students with disabilities during the transition to re-opened schools.

It is essential that school re-openings this fall do not lead to a rash of principals refusing to admit any number of students with disabilities to school. Such a rash of exclusions would risk creating two classes of students: those allowed to return to school and those who are quietly excluded from school. The injustice would be especially apparent if this disproportionately divided along disability lines.

It is therefore recommended that, pending more substantial reforms in this area, the Ontario Government should promptly rein in the power to refuse to admit a student to school. The following should be provincially directed now, well before any transition to re-opened schools:

1. The Ministry of Education should immediately issue a policy direction (PPM) to all School Boards, imposing detailed restrictions on when and how a principal may exclude a student from school, including directions that:

(a) During the re-opening at schools, students with disabilities have an equal right to attend schools for the entire school day as do students without disabilities. The power to refuse to admit a student to school for all or part of the school day should not be used in a way that results in disproportionate burdens on students with disabilities or that creates a barrier to their right to attend school.

(b) A principal who refuses to admit a student to school during the school re-opening process should be required to immediately give the student and their family written notice of their decision to do so, including specific written reasons for the refusal to admit, stipulating the duration of the refusal to admit and explaining the family’s right to appeal this refusal to admit to the School Board.

(c) A principal who refuses to admit a student to school for all or part of the school day should be required to immediately report this in writing to their School Board’s senior management, including the reasons for the exclusion, its duration and whether the student has a disability. Each School Board should be required to compile this information and to report it on a bi-monthly basis to the Board of trustees, the public and the Ministry of Education (with individual information totally anonymized). The Ministry should promptly make public on a provincial


basis and a School Board by School Board basis the information it receives on numbers, reasons and durations of refusals to admit during post- COVID-19 school re-opening.

2. The Minister of Education should now convene a summit of key stakeholders to get input on legislation and policy changes to reforms to the power under s. 265(1)(m) of the Education Act to refuse to admit a student to school, using this report as a basis for discussion.

3. The Ministry of Education should commit along specific time lines, not exceeding six months, to create a policy direction to School Boards or PPM that sets out more detailed requirements for the use of a principal’s power to refuse to admit a student to school. These requirements should include the most commendable features in existing School Board policies and procedures in this area, as identified in this report. It should forbid those provisions in existing School Board policies that this report shows are inappropriate.


Appendix I

Text of email to School Boards (June 8, 2020)

Attn: Director of Education, [School Board Name]

I am writing on behalf of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. I am a law student at the Osgoode Hall Law School, and a volunteer with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance is conducting a survey of all school boards in Ontario, on their practices and policies regarding a principal's power to refuse to admit a student to school under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act. The results of this survey will be made public. We would appreciate your response by June 22, 2020. Please email your response to [response email] If possible, please include in your response the name and contact of an official at your school board to whom any follow-up questions on this topic might be directed.

We first conducted this survey of all Ontario school boards in the first half of 2019. Some school boards answered our survey. Others did not. Our records indicate that your board [did/did not respond] to our original note, when we attempted to contact you. We want to update our results to be current. This is your opportunity to tell us whether your school board‘s policy or practice on refusals to admit has changed since we wrote you last year. The questions set out below are the same as we asked in early 2019.

This issue is especially important in light of the COVID-19 crisis. With a possible return to school this fall, there is a concern that students with disabilities not find themselves disproportionately required to remain at home due to being subjected to refusals to admit to school.

Could you please answer these questions about a principal’s power to "refuse to admit" a student to school. By "refusal to admit", we include any time the school board or its principal formally or informally asks or directs that a student not attend school, or that the student be taken home from school, whether in writing or in a discussion, whether formally or informally, when the student is not being subject to a disciplinary suspension or expulsion from school. For purposes of the following questions, a refusal to admit includes a school board request or direction that a student only attend school for part of the regular school day, and not the full school day.

1. Does your school board have a written policy and/or procedure on when, by what procedure, and/or for how long the school board or a principal may refuse to admit a student to school under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act? If so, please send us a copy of that policy and/or procedure. Is that policy and/or procedure publicly available on your school board's website? If so, please send us the link to that specific web page.

http://www.aodaalliance.org/


2. Does your school board have a written policy and/or procedure on opportunities or avenues for a student or their family to appeal a refusal to admit to school? If so, please send us that policy and/or procedure. Is that policy and/or procedure publicly available on your school board's website? If so, please send us the link to that specific web page.

3. Does your school board track and collect data or information from principals or schools on instances when a refusal to admit a student takes place? Is a principal required to report to their superiors on the instances when a student is subject to a refusal to admit to school, and the reasons for doing so, or any other information about it? If your school board has a policy or procedure for collecting data or information on refusals to admit and/or for reporting on the instances when this occurs, please send us a copy of that policy and/or procedure. Is that policy and/or procedure publicly available on your school board's website? If so, please send us the link to that specific web page.

4. If your school board collects data or information on the instances when a student is subjected to a refusal to admit, please send us the number of instances for each of the past calendar or school years.

5. When a student does not attend school for all or part of a school day due to a refusal to admit to school, how is a teacher required to mark this absence for purposes of attendance? Does your school board have a specific attendance code that a teacher is required to use to mark such an absence? If so, what is the aggregate amount of time for each of the past three calendar years or school years that students were excluded from school due to refusals to admit, at your school board, according to your board's attendance data?

We thank you for any assistance you can provide. If you have no information on any or all of these items, please let us know. If you have any questions, please contact us by emailing [response email]


Appendix II

Email from David Lepofsky to counsel for the Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE)

To: [Counsel for CODE] From: David Lepofsky CM, O. Ont Chair Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act AllianceDate: February 9, 2019 Re: AODA Alliance Survey on Exclusion of Students from School

Thank you for reaching out and speaking with me yesterday. You said you are a lawyer who was retained by CODE, the Council of Ontario Directors of Education. A director of education is in effect the CEO of a school board in Ontario.

You explained that Code was reaching out to us on behalf of Ontario's school boards, in response to the survey that we had recently sent to Ontario's school boards regarding refusals to admit students to school. To assist, I set out below the standard survey that our team of law students at the Osgoode Hall Law School sent to each school board in Ontario last month.

You asked for certain clarifications of both the content and purpose for our survey. You told me that I could respond to you as representing all school boards. Thus I understand that you will share our feedback with all school boards, and that it won't be necessary for us to re-send the survey with the clarifications that I gave you and that I describe in the following paragraphs.

I told you that if there are any further questions from any school board, they are welcome to contact me at any time. May I add that we have been and are at all times happy and willing to provide any guidance and clarifications we can. School boards need not go to the expense of hiring counsel to seek such basic clarifications.

I here summarize the clarifications you sought. When we use the term "refusal to admit" in the survey, we mean the following, as is stated in the survey itself:

"By "refusal to admit", we include any time the school board or its principal formally or informally asks or directs that a student not attend school, or that the student be taken home from school, whether in writing or in a discussion, whether formally or informally, when the student is not being subject to a disciplinary suspension or expulsion from school. For purposes of the following questions, a refusal to admit includes a school board request or direction that a student may only attend school for part of the regular school day, and not the full school day."

You said that either you or your client do not think that a principal's decision to direct that a student with special education needs will have a reduced school day, is a "refusal to admit", within the meaning of s. 265(1)(m) of the Education Act. I clarified that we do view these as


included within a refusal to admit to school within the meaning of that provision. However, it is not necessary to resolve any differing views on that issue for the purposes of our survey. However one may interpret s. 265(1)(m) of the Education Act, our survey asks its various questions both in relation to a student being required to stay away from school for all of a day, or for only part of a day.

Whether or not a school board treats or views both scenarios as a "refusal to admit", we want to know about the board's policy, data collection etc., in relation to both, as addressed in our five survey questions. If, for example, a school board has a policy for a full-day exclusion from school, but no policy for a partial-day exclusion from school, or if it has a different policy for each, we would like to know about them.

As we discussed, we are not asking about situations where a parent asks the board to excuse a student for part of the day e.g. for the family to privately get therapies elsewhere. Our Survey addresses situations where, apart from formal disciplinary suspensions or expulsions, the school board or principal initiates the requirement to stay away from school for all or part of a day or days, and where it is not the parents' request or wish. The fact that a parent or parents may acquiesce in the principal's request to keep their child home from school does not derogate from the fact that there is, in substance, a school-initiated exclusion from school.

Our survey asked for responses by January 22, 2019. Having reflected on our conversation, may I request that we receive responses, if at all possible, by February 28, 2019. If that timeline presents a difficulty for any school board, they can, of course, let us know.

Finally, you asked what we were intending to do with the responses to this survey. The survey itself makes it clear that we intend to make public the responses we seek. This is part of our effort to get the Ontario Government to institute reforms, including issuing a policy directive on this issue and to get the Government to convene a provincial summit on this issue. That summit would enable stakeholders to work together on ways to address this issue. The contents of our resulting report on this survey will depend on the responses we receive.

May I ask that you encourage your client, and the school boards on whose behalf they retained you, to answer our survey's questions. As publicly-funded school boards, their policies, procedures and practices in this area are important to a great many students and their families across Ontario. The public has a right to know the information we seek. Please let me know, or have your client let me know, if there is any further assistance we can provide. I want to be sure you received this email, so please let me know that you did.

Sample Text of the AODA Alliance Survey of Ontario School Boards on Exclusions From School

I am writing on behalf of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. I am a law student at the Osgoode Hall Law School, and a volunteer with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance is conducting a survey of all school boards in Ontario, on their practices and policies regarding a


principal's power to refuse to admit a student to school under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act. The results of this survey will be made public. We would appreciate your response by January 21, 2019. Please email your response to ## If possible, please include in your response the name and contact of an official at your school board to whom any follow-up questions on this topic might be directed.

Could you please answer these questions about "refusals to admit" a student to school. By "refusal to admit", we include any time the school board or its principal formally or informally asks or directs that a student not attend school, or that the student be taken home from school, whether in writing or in a discussion, whether formally or informally, when the student is not being subject to a disciplinary suspension or expulsion from school. For purposes of the following questions, a refusal to admit includes a school board request or direction that a student only attend school for part of the regular school day., , and not the full school day.

1. Does your school board have a written policy and/or procedure on when, by what procedure, and/or for how long the school board or a principal may refuse to admit a student to school under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act? If so, please send us a copy of that policy and/or procedure. Is that policy and/or procedure publicly available on your school board's website? If so, please send us the link to that specific web page.

2. Does your school board have a written policy and/or procedure on opportunities or avenues for a student or their family to appeal a refusal to admit to school? If so, please send us that policy and/or procedure. Is that policy and/or procedure publicly available on your school board's website? If so, please send us the link to that specific web page.

3. Does your school board track and collect data or information from principals or schools on instances when a refusal to admit a student takes place? Is a principal required to report to their superiors on the instances when a student is subject to a refusal to admit to school, and the reasons for doing so, or any other information about it? If your school board has a policy or procedure for collecting data or information on refusals to admit and/or for reporting on the instances when this occurs, please send us a copy of that policy and/or procedure. Is that policy and/or procedure publicly available on your school board's website? If so, please send us the link to that specific web page.

4. If your school board collects data or information on the instances when a student is subjected to a refusal to admit, please send us the number of instances for each of the past calendar or school years.

5. When a student does not attend school for all or part of a school day due to a refusal to admit to school, how is a teacher required to mark this absence for purposes of attendance? Does your school board have a specific attendance code that a teacher is required to use to mark such an absence? If so, what is the aggregate amount of time for each of the past three calendar years or school years that students were excluded from school due to refusals to admit, at your school board, according to your board's attendance data?


We thank you for any assistance you can provide. If you have no information on any or all of these items, please let us know. If you have any questions, please contact us by emailing ##


Appendix III

Selected excerpts from the AODA Alliance survey results (June 2020)

(a) Boards that Responded in Either 2019 or 2020 (Total: 36)

Ottawa Catholic District School BoardOttawa-Carleton District School BoardLimestone District School BoardAlgonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School BoardRenfrew County Catholic District School BoardHastings & Prince Edward District School BoardKawartha Pine Ridge District School BoardTrillium Lakelands District School BoardSimcoe County District School BoardDurham District School BoardYork Catholic District School BoardYork Region District School BoardSimcoe Muskoka Catholic District School BoardPeel District School BoardHalton Catholic District School BoardHalton District School BoardHamilton-Wentworth District School BoardConseil scolaire catholique MonAvenirToronto District School BoardToronto Catholic District School BoardBluewater District School BoardHuron Perth Catholic District School BoardAvon Maitland District School BoardUpper Grand District School BoardWaterloo Region District School BoardWaterloo Catholic District School BoardGrand Erie District School BoardLondon District Catholic School BoardLambton Kent District School BoardSt Clair Catholic District School BoardGreater Essex County District School BoardSuperior-Greenstone District School BoardNipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School BoardRainy River District School BoardKenora Catholic District School BoardKeewatin-Patricia District School Board


(b) Boards Who Have Policies (Total:33)

Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'OntarioOttawa Catholic District School BoardUpper Canada District School BoardLimestone District School BoardAlgonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School BoardPeterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School BoardSimcoe County District School BoardDurham Catholic District School BoardDurham District School BoardYork Region District School BoardPeel District School BoardHalton District School BoardHamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School BoardToronto District School BoardHuron Perth Catholic District School BoardAvon Maitland District School BoardUpper Grand District School BoardGrand Erie District School BoardSt Clair Catholic District School BoardGreater Essex County District School BoardSuperior-Greenstone District School BoardSuperior North Catholic District School BoardNipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School BoardNear North District School BoardConseil scolaire de district du Nord-Est de l'OntarioConseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’OntarioRainbow District School BoardNortheastern Catholic District School BoardDistrict School Board Ontario North EastThunder Bay Catholic District School BoardRainy River District School BoardNorthwest Catholic District School BoardKenora Catholic District School Board

(c) Boards Who Provided a Policy in Response to the AODA Alliance Survey (Total: 11)

Ottawa Catholic District School BoardSimcoe County District School BoardPeel District School BoardToronto District School BoardHuron Perth Catholic District School Board


Upper Grand District School BoardGrand Erie District School BoardGreater Essex County District School BoardSuperior-Greenstone District School BoardRainy River District School BoardKenora Catholic District School Board

(d) Boards Where the AODA Alliance Independently Found a Policy on the Internet (Total: 22)

Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'OntarioUpper Canada District School BoardLimestone District School BoardAlgonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School BoardPeterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School BoardDurham Catholic District School BoardDurham District School BoardYork Region District School BoardHalton District School BoardHamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School BoardAvon Maitland District School BoardSt Clair Catholic District School BoardSuperior North Catholic District School BoardNipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School BoardNear North District School BoardConseil scolaire de district du Nord-Est de l'OntarioConseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’OntarioRainbow District School BoardNortheastern Catholic District School BoardDistrict School Board Ontario North EastThunder Bay Catholic District School BoardNorthwest Catholic District School Board

(e) Boards Who Did Not Respond to the AODA Alliance Survey, But Where the AODA Alliance Independently Found a Policy on the Internet (Total: 14)

Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'OntarioUpper Canada District School BoardPeterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School BoardDurham Catholic District School BoardHamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board


Superior North Catholic District School BoardNear North District School BoardConseil scolaire de district du Nord-Est de l'OntarioConseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’OntarioRainbow District School BoardNortheastern Catholic District School BoardDistrict School Board Ontario North EastThunder Bay Catholic District School BoardNorthwest Catholic District School Board

(f) Boards Who Responded to the AODA Alliance Survey, But Did Not Provide a Policy, and Where the AODA Alliance Independently Found a Policy on the Internet (Total: 8)

Limestone District School BoardAlgonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School BoardDurham District School BoardYork Region District School BoardHalton District School BoardAvon Maitland District School BoardSt Clair Catholic District School BoardNipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School Board

(g) Boards With More Detailed Policies (Total: 20)

Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'OntarioOttawa Catholic District School BoardUpper Canada District School BoardPeterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School BoardSimcoe County District School BoardDurham District School BoardPeel District School BoardHalton District School BoardHamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School BoardToronto District School BoardHuron Perth Catholic District School BoardAvon Maitland District School BoardUpper Grand District School BoardGrand Erie District School BoardGreater Essex County District School BoardSuperior-Greenstone District School Board


Superior North Catholic District School BoardNear North District School BoardRainbow District School BoardRainy River District School Board

(h) Boards With Policies That at Most Minimally Exceed PPM 145 (Total: 13)

Limestone District School BoardAlgonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School BoardDurham Catholic District School BoardYork Region District School BoardSt Clair Catholic District School BoardNipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School BoardConseil scolaire de district du Nord-Est de l'OntarioConseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’OntarioNortheastern Catholic District School BoardDistrict School Board Ontario North EastThunder Bay Catholic District School BoardNorthwest Catholic District School BoardKenora Catholic District School Board

(i) Boards Who Confirmed They Have No Policy (Total: 6)

Renfrew County Catholic District School BoardYork Catholic District School BoardHamilton-Wentworth District School BoardBluewater District School BoardLondon District Catholic School BoardKeewatin-Patricia District School Board

(j) Boards Who Required Research Committee Approval, or a Formal Freedom of Information (FOI) Request (Total: 6)

Hastings & Prince Edward District School BoardYork Region District School BoardSimcoe Muskoka Catholic District School BoardHalton Catholic District School BoardToronto Catholic District School BoardWaterloo Catholic District School Board


(k) Boards Who Responded But Refused to Complete the Survey (Total: 4)

Kawartha Pine Ridge District School BoardSimcoe Muskoka Catholic District School BoardHalton District School BoardSt Clair Catholic District School Board

(l) Boards Where the AODA Alliance Independently Found a Policy on the Internet Despite the Board Refusing to Answer, or the Board Requiring Research Committee Approval, or a FOI request (Total: 3)

York Region District School BoardHalton District School BoardSt Clair Catholic District School Board

for too much of ontario, each school principal is a law ... · web view15. a student’s record...

Documents