BOARD DEFENDS COSTLY BATTLE

'We just need to once again be clear on what the process is and make
sure we're following it correctly'

Losing a crucial appeal at the Superior Court of Justice level was a
learning experience for the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School
Board, says its chairwoman.

"Our main interest was in getting clarification as to how we implement
expulsions under the Education Act," said Diane Lloyd.

"With this appeal, and this appeal not going through, we just need to
once again be clear on what the process is and make sure we're
following it correctly. Obviously there are some pieces that we're
missing, so that's what we want to work on as a board."

This clarification cost the school board, meaning taxpayers, nearly
$40,000.

Last week, the court rejected the board's appeal of a Child and Family
Services Review Board decision to reinstate a PCVS student expelled in
December 2008 for smoking marijuana.

The review board, referred to in court documents as the tribunal,
ruled in March 2009 that the school did not have the authority to
expel the teen because the drug use occurred off school property.

Jean Grant, the teen's mother, fought the expulsion on those grounds,
saying the school had no right to punish her son for something that
happened on his own time. The tribunal agreed, but the board disputed
this, taking the case to Superior Court. The school board claimed the
student's off-campus activities had a negative effect on the "climate"
of the school, a new concept included in the Safe Schools Act in 2008.

"They filed this appeal last June, when he had applied to go back to
school (after the tribunal ruling)," Grant said. "They wanted to
re-expel him. They were wrong."

The court, in a ruling written by Madam Justice Katherine Swinton,
agreed.

"In my view, the decision of the tribunal falls within a range of
reasonable outcomes," Swinton wrote. "It correctly interpreted the
legislation, weighed the evidence and reasonably concluded that the
school board had failed to prove that (the student's) activity would
negatively impact the school climate."

The tribunal ruled against the board, determining that the purchase
and consumption of the drugs, taking place off school property, had no
impact on the school, Swinton wrote.

"The tribunal found that the onus lay with the school board to
demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the activities of the
pupil will have an impact on the school climate at some point in the
future. The school board must show a direct and causal link between
the pupil's behaviour and a definitive impact on the school climate,"
the ruling states, continuing: "While there was evidence of a drug
problem at PCVS, the tribunal found that there was no evidence of a
'nexus' between (the student's) off-school activities and the school
climate. Evidence that (he) brought marijuana to school, used it at
school or discussed it at school could have established a nexus, but
the school board did not lead any such evidence."

Lloyd, who did not address the case's particulars, said things that
students do off-campus have an effect at school.

"One of the main issues in expulsion cases in general is what happens
if the incident happens off school property," Lloyd said. "In most
schools, I would suggest that all students know about it very quickly.
That's the nature of school communities. So in that light, I would
think that anything that happens in a school affects the school community."

Lloyd would not say whether the board plans to appeal this most recent
decision.

"I have had some conversations, certainly with people at the school
board," she said.

"As far as expulsions go, the whole reason that the right to expel
exists is keeping schools safe. So our first priority is to keep our
schools, our students and our staff safe. The other side of it we want
to be sure that we're giving every opportunity to the student in
question to get help and to finish their education, as well."

Grant said the board didn't do much to make that happen.

"All they did was send him a letter saying they had decided to expel
him, without explaining why" she said. "By law, they have to give us
the reasons why, and they have to give us an education plan to finish
his career, and they never did any of that. The school board has been
bad with communication and with following its own policies and
guidelines."

The Superior Court ruling cited the Education Act in its examination
of the expulsion letter.

"The letter did not set out any reasons, despite the requirement in s.
311.6 (2) that the notice of the expulsion include the reason for the
expulsion," the ruling states.

The ruling goes on to point out the board did not provide the tribunal
with details of the expulsion.

"First, the school board decision gave no reasons for the expulsion,"
the ruling states. "Second, the school board did not provide the
tribunal with a full evidentiary record on which it could base its
decision. There is no record of the school board's expulsion hearing."

Lloyd said the court's ruling will be looked at by the
board.

"We implement expulsions according to the Education Act, and there are
certain offenses that require an expulsion hearing, and one of the
criteria is impact on the school community," she said. "And that's
where this one is not clear. So once we received the decision, we
weren't sure that the instructions we were giving our principals was
correct. So we felt we needed to get more detail."