schools Archives - LawNow Magazine

Bench Press 39-4: The Charter Protects Proms

April 8, 2015 By Teresa Mitchell

Two graduating high school students in Ontario launched a Charter challenge to their school principal’s decision to have a mandatory breathalyser test at their prom. They argued that the mandatory test was a violation of their s. 8 Charter right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Justice Himel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice first decided that the Charter does apply to school events, ruling that the school authorities were carrying out a “quintessentially government function to which the Charter should apply.” Then, she decided that the students were not in a position to give informed consent to the breach of their Charter right, given that they had no meaningful choice between consenting to the test and missing a significant event in their lives. Finally, she ruled that students have a reasonable expectation of privacy over their breath samples and this was violated by the blanket imposition of the test. She concluded that the use of a blanket breathalyser test was highly intrusive and disproportionate given the nature of the suspected breaches.

Simon Gillies et al v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 ONSC 1038 (CanLII)

Transgender youth: Everyday items, everyday rights

March 8, 2015 By Melissa Luhtanen J.D.

The public bathroom can be a major source of anxiety for transgender youth. Using a public restroom may result in their status being discovered. If they identify as transgender and have not yet revealed their identity, they may feel like an imposter. Worse yet, trans teens may be subject to ridicule, abuse or assault, physical or sexual, in public lavatories. Issues concerning use of the restroom may be the first notice that a school receives that a child is transgender.

– Which Way to the Restroom? Respecting the rights of transgender youth in the school system

The task of protecting transgender youth in schools has begun. A topic that ten years ago was rarely discussed is now at the forefront of policy-making in many school boards across the country. The job of protecting transgender youth has not been easy and is still in the beginning stages, but it is a source of endless debate and discussion, which means it is on the radar of those who care for youth.

In schools, the discussion has centered around harassment, gendered washrooms and change rooms, segregated sports, dress codes, names and pronouns. Looking at this list, it is easy to see that much of it is a list of details; everyday items that make up a person’s day: getting dressed, going to the bathroom, changing for gym, having your friends call you by name, and playing on a sports team. Part of the reason that transgender youth are fighting task by task is because a youth, for the most part, cannot have surgery to live in their identified gender. Some laws and policies depend on the occurrence of gender reassignment surgery and say that a person must have had some surgery that reflects the identified-gender in order to obtain particular rights. For a youth, this option is not possible and so they fight the battle of details. Their rights cannot stem from the fact that they have proof of surgery or proof of gender on an identification document. This is not to downplay the complexities of gaining rights for transgender adults, but instead to highlight the struggles for youth.

One of the legal debates has been: when does the law accept transgender persons as being the gender that they identify? Some laws and policies depend on the occurrence of gender reassignment surgery and say that a person must have had some surgery that reflects the identified-gender in order to obtain particular rights. More recently some rights have been permitted to transgender people who self-identify their gender. Policies protecting transgender youth cannot depend on the status of surgery, and so have often allowed for self-identification to obtain rights, such as participating on a particular gendered sports team.

Schools are faced with the issue of addressing how to accommodate a transgender youth who wants to use the bathroom or change room that matches their identified gender. Different school boards have used different standards.

The Edmonton Public School Board Policy on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity HFA.AR asks school staff to be sensitive to the needs and privacy of transgender youth when determining restroom accessibility. It calls for “individual solutions” and mentions finding a solution that does not disrupt the school. …even school boards without a policy will still have human rights obligations toward transgender students.

The Vancouver School Board Policy Code ACB-R-1 assesses the accommodation of a transgender student using washrooms and change rooms “…with the goals of maximizing the student’s social integration, ensuring the student’s safety and comfort, minimizing stigmatization and providing equal opportunity to participate in physical education classes and sports.” It says that transgender students shall be able to use the washroom and change room for their identified gender.

Nova Scotia’s Guidelines for Supporting Transgender and Gender-nonconforming Students encourages schools to find a safe washroom facility that corresponds with a student’s gender identity.

Toronto District School Board’s Guidelines for the Accommodation of Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students and Staff goes a step further by clearly stating: “Requiring students to ‘prove’ their gender (by requiring a doctor’s letter, identity documents, etc.) is not acceptable. A student’s self-identification is the sole measure of the student’s gender.”

Some of these policies reference the transgender student’s self-identification as the standard upon which to allow the student to use a washroom that corresponds with their gender. Part of the reason that transgender youth are fighting task by task is because a youth, for the most part, cannot have surgery to live in their identified gender. For instance, Toronto’s policy is the most clear in using the student’s self-identification as the sole gauge of gender. Other policies, such as Edmonton’s, discusses the student’s identity as transgender in the opening paragraph, but in the clause on restrooms looks more toward “individual solutions”, respect and safety. This language of “individual solutions” is in line with human rights law on accommodating a student (or anyone for that matter). When looking for an accommodation, the school is legally bound to look for a solution on a case-by-case basis and to not rely on a one-size-fits-all rule.

School boards such as those in Edmonton, Vancouver and Nova Scotia, have included in their policies that schools must reduce or eliminate gender-segregated activities. Many policies specify that staff should aim toward accommodating transgender youth according to their gender identity in these activities.

The school board policies in Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Nova Scotia all stress safety and openness to the student participating in the gym class or sports team that corresponds to their gender identity. Each policy notes that excluding transgender youth from physical education is not an option. The debate on the issue of sports runs deeper than these policies are able to address in over-arching statements. In the adult world, the desire of a transgender person to play on a single-gender team that corresponds with their gender identity can create controversy. Some of this controversy has been abated. In 2004, the International Olympic Committee adopted a policy whereby transgender people may compete in the Olympic Games if they: have had gender reassignment surgery, are legally recognized and have had two years of hormone therapy. Many sports oriented organizations have followed suit.

The Transgender Law & Policy Institute, an American based organization, published Guidelines for Creating Policies for Transgender Children in Recreational Sports in September 2009. The school board policies in Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Nova Scotia all stress safety and openness to the student participating in the gym class or sports team that corresponds to their gender identity. These Guidelines state that the debates that may cause problems in the adult sporting world are focused on the competitive advantage that male hormones may provide in sports. However, “[i]n preadolescent children… hormonal levels do not differ significantly between the sexes. Therefore, no hormonally-based advantage or disadvantage between girls and boys exist.”

Not every school board in every province and territory has a policy on transgender youth. Some places are creating policies around sports. Some school boards have yet to create a general policy for transgender youth. Every school board would be bound by human rights laws, within their area, that protect students based on gender identity, gender or sex. And therefore, even school boards without a policy will still have human rights obligations toward transgender students. What many of those rights are has yet to be heard by tribunals and courts. Therefore, students may find it difficult to decipher what rights they are entitled to without a policy, and to obtain those rights in a timely manner.

The policies that I reviewed acknowledged that each situation must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. This is the very nature of accommodation – looking at each case individually and finding solutions that would reasonably accommodate a transgender youth. Legal cases providing direction on these issues are few and far between and there are no cases addressing bathrooms or change rooms that have made it to a higher court (for instance, Ferris v Office and Technical Employees Union, Local 15 [1999] BCHRTD No 55 is a tribunal decision regarding the use of the woman’s bathroom by a transgender woman in her workplace). Any case law that does address transgender complainants usually involves adults. Therefore, schools are left to interpret the law as it relates to human rights and apply it to the situation of gender identity.

“Meaningful Access”: Students with learning disabilities strive to be included

March 6, 2014 By Melissa Luhtanen J.D.

Jeffrey Moore attended public school, at School District No. 44 (the “District”), from kindergarten to grade three, beginning in 1991. Jeffrey had access to an aide and attended a Learning Assistance Centre; his parents hired a private tutor. By January 1994, in grade 2, Jeffrey had serious headaches; he was under “significant stress”, was making slow progress in school and was behaving immaturely. He underwent a full psycho-educational assessment and was diagnosed with a severe learning disability. A District psychologist referred Jeffrey to the District’s Diagnostic Centre, however funding cuts intervened and the Diagnostic Centre was closed down. The District had no other program to refer Jeffrey to, and therefore, it recommended that he attend a private school that specialized in learning disabilities. The private school was not available until grade 4 and so Jeffrey had to stay at his existing school as he struggled to read and his self-esteem dropped. Jeffrey’s dad, Frederick Moore filed a complaint against the Ministry of Education and the Board of Education in School District No. 44 for failing to provide the learning supports that Jeffrey required. Moore v British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (“Moore”)

This case is informative about a school board’s responsibility to accommodate students with learning disabilities. A District psychologist referred Jeffrey to the District’s Diagnostic Centre, however funding cuts intervened and the Diagnostic Centre was closed down. In British Columbia it is estimated that three percent of students have a learning disability (Supporting Students with Learning Disabilities: A Guide for Teachers, Sept 2011, BC Ministry of Education). The Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario notes that estimates of children who have a learning disability range from 2% to 10% (Learning Disabilities Statistics). This range is affected by the definition of “learning disability”. There is no definition that is widely accepted and so there is no agreement as to whether certain conditions are included in the category of “learning disability”. Regardless of the numbers, Moore notes that, “adequate special education … is not a dispensable luxury.” [para 5] In fact, Abella, J. says that it is a “ramp” into the legislated commitment to educate all children. [para 5]

Moore was heard under section 8 of the British Columbia Human Right’s Code. The case considered whether the “service” that Jeffrey had been denied was “special education” or “general education”. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissent in the Court of Appeal by Rowles, J.A., who said that the service that had been denied was “general education” available to the public. Jeffery had been denied “meaningful access” to that general education which was mandated by legislation. The School Act preamble in British Columbia says that:

The purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable all learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy.

This statement is aimed at all learners and not just learners who do not have a learning disability. In the Moore case, the cuts in the District were made disproportionately to special needs programs. Jeffrey had not received sufficient education at an early stage to address his severe learning disability. He had been given some access to support such as an aide and extra tutoring. However, he had not received adequate support given his challenges and the District’s recommendations. The District had recommended that Jeffrey be placed in the Diagnostic Centre for a more intensive program. However, the closure of the program, coupled by no backup plan or assessment as to the effect of the closure, resulted in discrimination.

The Court noted that the stress Jeffrey was experiencing would have improved with assistance for his learning disability. Getting support can bolster a child’s self-confidence and decrease incidents of behavioural problems. In a 2007 study by the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, Putting a Face on Learning Disabilities (PACFOLD) (“2007 Study”), it was found that 14.7% of parents who had children with a learning disability reported that their child had been diagnosed with emotional, psychological or nervous problems. This is in comparison with a reported 1% of parents of children who do not have a disability. Therefore, almost 15 times the amount of children with learning disabilities experience psychological difficulties in school. The frustration of not doing well causes psychological stress that can be addressed through remedial help. The 2007 study reported that 25% of Canadians with a learning disability (aged 22 to 29) did not have a high school certificate. The result of an untreated learning disability has a potentially long-term effect.

In the Moore case, the cuts in the District were made disproportionately to special needs programs. For instance, there was an Outdoor School that was not cut even though it cost the District a similar amount. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Tribunal’s finding that there had been discrimination by the District, based on Jeffrey’s learning disability.

A panel for the Edmonton Regional Learning Consortium (the “Panel”) suggested the following to assist students with learning disabilities and to provide them with “meaningful access” to general education:

early identification of students with special needs;
appropriate assessment of what those needs might be; and
the identification and inclusion of supports necessary to provide a “meaningful” education to a student with special needs.

The Panel noted that schools must focus on having a mechanism to identify students and a process to review requests and to ensure that the school does not dismiss a parent’s request without further investigation. (Moore v. British Columbia (Education): what does it mean for inclusive education in Alberta? Mar 21, 2013 12:13, Webinar)

Jeffrey completed his program at the private school in grade 7 and was reading at a grade 5 level, with math at a grade 7 level. He later completed high school at another private school for children with learning disabilities. Clearly he was able to learn with the right program and supports. Frederick Moore was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity and the money to pay for Jeffrey’s private school tuition from Grade 4 to 12.

You can learn more about the findings in Moore from The Supreme Court Changes Direction: Disability and Discrimination by Linda McKay-Panos, Law Now January 1, 2013.

Viewpoint: Planning Ahead

August 13, 2013 By Jennifer Allford

Not long ago, a class of Grade 4 students in Glenbow Elementary School in Cochrane got to work planning Alberta’s future.

First, they watched a series of videos exploring different industrial land-uses such as forestry, energy and agriculture. They also watched videos about other land-use factors including water quality, the health of fish, greenhouse gas emissions, GDP and the human population. After the videos, the students split into groups and presented a poster about an industrial land-use in the province.

And one day later that week, right after recess, the kids settled in with Alberta Tomorrow, a sophisticated, web-enabled tool that uses GIS technology and satellite imagery to simulate the effects of people on Alberta’s wildlife habitat, ecosystem services and natural resource production.

The tool lets the students examine a range of indicators and set 30-year goals for Alberta – in essence, they draw the future they’d like to see for the province. It becomes very clear, very quickly, that there are tradeoffs, and in order to create the future they want for Alberta, there needs to be careful planning today. This plain illustration of the benefits and liabilities around various land-uses really gets the students thinking, and talking.

“A typical initial Grade 4 reaction to liabilities is to just stop industrial development to save wildlife habitat,” says Jennifer Janzen, who takes Alberta Tomorrow into elementary, junior high and high school classrooms all over the province as executive director of the Alberta Tomorrow Foundation. “One (student) was even heard to say: ‘Ya, but that industry contributes to a higher GDP which helps fund our schools!’” The students have robust discussions around questions such as “How are natural resources used by Albertans?” and “How do Albertans deal with competing demands from land-use?” And it’s that kind of conversation that gives the students “a thorough understanding of how industry contributes to our GDP and economy, and how a balance between the economic benefits and environmental liabilities is what’s important,” says Janzen, a former teacher.

Brad Stelfox a landscape ecologist with ALCES Landscape & Land-Use was inspired to help create Alberta Tomorrow after a number of conversations with politicians in his day job as a consultant delivering land-use cumulative effects modelling tools and strategic land-use planning advice.

“The guidance I was getting back from politicians was yes, this is an important issue but dealing with it also causes challenges,” he says. “And until the system can create awareness and there’s a really strong signal from normal Albertans, just the average Joe, that they want politicians dealing with not only the benefits, but the challenges, they aren’t likely to respond.”

It became clear, Stelfox says, that to address the pressing land-use issues in Alberta, Albertans needed to learn more about them. So he and his colleagues Matt Carlson, Jennifer Janzen and Noah Purves-Smith got to work developing Alberta Tomorrow to foster that more informed conversation about land-use, whether it be forestry, agriculture, energy, transportation, residential development or tourism.

“There is a lot of knowledge in Alberta about the benefits of land-use. The average Albertan understands land-use is important – it gives us jobs; it gives us royalties,” he says. “Land-use creates benefits but it creates problems too, whether its air emissions or water quality or loss of wildlife habitat there are problems and there is not a very good conversation in Alberta about that.”

Years and years ago, students were taught the importance of recycling, a message they took home to their parents who saw the benefits and rather quickly caught on to the idea. Alberta Tomorrow is attempting that same model, a “bottom up trajectory” where students teach their parents. “If we can help people understand the balance, then they’re more likely to influence their politicians in a more reasonable way,” says Stelfox. “That’s the hope.”

The tool has been adapted to work with existing curriculum in elementary, junior high and high schools. “Teachers are busy, they have a defined curriculum and they only have so many hours in the day,” says Stelfox. “So the challenge was to build something they could incorporate into their busy educational curricula.”

A key challenge to delivering Alberta Tomorrow was the need to finish the land-use mapping of the province. That is where the Alberta Real Estate Foundation stepped in, and with their financial contributions, allowed this important gap to be filled.

So far, 300 teachers and more than 1,200 students have registered for an account to use the tool, but far more students have seen it “because some teachers, especially in earlier grades like Grade 1, use it as a demonstration, rather than have the students register themselves for an account to use the tool,” says Janzen.

Bringing the land-use conversation into the province’s classrooms seems to be trickling up from students to their parents. “I’ve been doing some high level professional work, and some director or CEO will comment about their daughter or son in school using Alberta Tomorrow,” says Stelfox. “Looking at my work, they’ll say this is the same issue that my child described and brought home from school. It is having an effect.”

After spending a handful of classes studying land-use and balancing the tradeoffs, those Grade 4 students in Cochrane wrote letters to the provincial government suggesting how best to balance development and the environment. The province had asked for feedback over land-use in its proposed South Saskatchewan Regional Plan, and the students were happy to provide their very informed recommendations.

For more information about Alberta Tomorrow, visit albertatomorrow.ca

AREFAd376-2

Mother May I? Schools and Parenting Disputes

July 5, 2013 By Rosemarie Boll

I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by Jim Davies, the general counsel for the Edmonton Public School Board. He gave a group of family law lawyers the educator’s perspective on parenting disputes.¹ Today’s dynamic family configurations can be complicated – divorced biological parents, foster parents, relatives, same-sex partners, step-parents, and even mature minors. Just who holds the educational rights and responsibilities and what do they mean?

The School Act’s guiding principle is stated in its preamble: “… the best educational interests of the student are the paramount considerations in the exercise of any authority under this Act.” The principal is charged with maintaining order and discipline in the school and on its grounds during all activities approved by the school board (s.20 (f ). Principals must promote co-operation between the school and the community that it serves. Their main point of contact is, of course, parents. The School Act says that a “parent” is the child’s guardian as defined in section 20 of the Family Law Act.² Each guardian has equal rights to be informed, consulted, and to make significant decisions affecting the child unless those rights have been limited by a parenting order. Thankfully, most parents, separated or not, put their children first. The fact that there is a court order signals that there might be some stress in the family, and the principal and staff will be sensitive to this. The school will accommodate reasonable requests for special arrangements (for example, separate parent-teacher interviews) provided it is in the child’s best educational interests. However, school administrators are not bound by court orders.

This took me by surprise. I had assumed that schools must obey parenting orders. Not so. This is because of the principle of “legislative supremacy”. Court orders cannot override legislation. The principal must run her school the way the School Act, not a judge, tells her to. For example, if parents are fighting and mom gets a judge to order that the school must give copies of report cards directly to her, the principal can ask herself – what is in the best educational interests of this student? If she decides it is not in the student’s best educational interests, she can refuse.³

The biggest challenge is handling hostile parents who make opposing demands, or dealing with a parent who is alienating and controlling a child. In severe situations, principals do not worry about a guardian’s rights. They worry about safety, especially the child’s. The principal can choose to withhold information that someone might be ‘entitled’ to. An angry parent may want to transfer their child to a different school, but the move can be refused (s.45.6). A school is a publicly-funded building but not a public building, and school administrators have the power to ban a parent from school property (s.27). An aggrieved parent cannot sue a school administrator for making a decision they disagree with or for doing something that is contrary to a court order. The School Act protects school staff from liability for loss or damages if the action was done in good faith in accordance with the Act (s.144.1(1).

Parental authority can end before a student finishes school. If a student is over age 18, or over age 16 and living independently, all the rights and obligations are transferred from the parents to the student (s.1(3). Even well-intentioned parents are not entitled to any information about their child.

It is not the principal’s job to interpret court orders. Principals are not referees, judges, or enforcers, and will resist anyone’s attempt to put them in that position. Principals see trouble brewing when one parent:

says the other parent is not allowed to visit the child for lunch or recess, even though that parent cannot be there.
tries to block the other parent from participating in classroom or school events.
insists that report cards and other documents be given only to them and not the other parent.
withholds copies of school announcements.
says personal things to make the other parent look bad.
insists that the child says she/he does not want to see the other parent.
isolates the other parent from teachers and school officials.
hides a good relationship between the child and the other parent, or tries to stifle communication so that the teachers do not hear the truth.
makes a scene at school functions – if the other parent is there, they will look disturbed or go out of their way to avoid the other parent.
does not want to use the school as an exchange point, and insists on a location of their choice. Generally, this is a place where they can have more control, such as their home.

Parent hostility is a big factor in the daily lives of school administrators and staff. A parent who hates the school hurts their child. When parents cannot agree, the principal will tell them they need to figure out a way to agree or to get a court order that solves their problem. In the meantime, the principal will do what she thinks is in the child’s best educational interests, and create the best learning environment possible for all the children.

Notes

1 The comments in this column are specific to the EPSB and may not apply elsewhere. If you have questions, search for information where you live. For example, you can find the Saskatchewan School Board Association’s instructions for educators here.

2 Family Law Act s 20(2). Not all parents are guardians. A parent is a guardian only if the parent has acknowledged that he or she is a parent of the child and has demonstrated an intention to assume the responsibility of a guardian. The legislation outlines the factors which determine if the section 20(2) requirements have been met.

3 Court orders are not legally binding on a party who has not had the opportunity to speak to the matter. The American Council of School Attorneys says that principals should not even read court orders. Canadian school administrators do not go this far.

An Overview of Anti-bullying Legislation and Alternatives in Canada

July 1, 2013 By Lindsey Panjvani

Very few days seem to go by, of late, without Canadians hearing about the alarming consequence of bullying in some form or another. This is particularly true in relation to children and youth. A number of high profile cases have garnered much discussion over the past few years, the latest of which is the tragic death of Rehtaeh Parsons. Studies and reports, campaigns and projects, and even the occasional uplifting triumphs, too, all do their part to keep this topic in the public eye.

According to Public Safety Canada, bullying is “characterized by acts of intentional harm, repeated over-time, in a relationship where an imbalance of power exists. It includes physical actions (punching, kicking, biting), verbal actions (threats, name calling, insults, racial or sexual comments), and social exclusion (spreading rumours, ignoring, gossiping, excluding).” Notably, a 2010 report for the Public Health Agency of Canada, on the Health of Canada’s Young People, found approximately 40% of adolescents to be both bullies and victims of bullying. And for all concerned, whether victim, bully, or both, the consequences can be many and long-lasting.

For those engaged in bullying, there may also be legal repercussions. While there is no offense termed bullying under the Canadian Criminal Code per se, many behaviours or incidents characterized as bullying fit the definition of criminal offenses. These include, for example, Criminal Harassment (CCC 264), Uttering Threats (CCC 264.1), Assault (CCC 265 & 266), and Sexual Assault (CCC 271), with perpetrators risking youth or adult sentencing depending on the circumstances of the crime(s). For more on this topic, see the John Howard Society for an accessible look at bullying and the law.

On a provincial level, a number of different approaches have been taken. At present, only some of the provinces have anti-bullying legislation in place, with mixed opinions as to their efficacy, while the other provinces and territories have opted to address bullying in different ways. What follows are recent legislative changes specific to bullying, as well as a quick look at the approaches taken by the others.

In Manitoba, Bill 18, which came into effect on April 15, 2012, amended The Public Schools Act specific to bullying and respect for human diversity. The term ‘bullying’ is defined, and school boards of publicly-funded non-religious and religious schools must both expand their policies about the appropriate use of the Internet and establish a respect for human diversity policy.

In Nova Scotia, Bill 30, the Promotion of Respectful and Responsible Relationships Act was introduced in April and received assent on May 17, 2012 shortly after the release of a task force report on bullying. The new Act resulted in bullying and cyberbullying being specifically addressed in the Education Act and the creation of a provincial school code of conduct. Bullying was further addressed on April 25, 2013 with the introduction of Bill 61, Cyber-safety Act to further address cyberbullying in particular.

New Brunswick’s Education Act was amended to address bullying and cyberbullying via Bill 45 on June 13, 2012. With an emphasis on “prevention, reporting, investigating and taking action,” bullying and cyberbullying were highlighted; the roles and responsibilities of principals, educators, parents, students and parent school support committees were clarified, along with protocols for discipline and intervention; and increased reporting at various levels was mandated.

On June 15, 2012, Bill 56 received assented in Quebec, amending the Education Act and the Act Respecting Private Education in relation to bullying and violence. Through these amendments, terms and responsibilities were defined, including the obligation of all public and private educational institutions to adopt and implement an anti-bullying and anti-violence plan.

Shortly thereafter, Ontario’s Education Act was amended on June 19, 2012 by Bill 13 with respect to bullying and other matters. New legal obligations exist for school boards and schools to prevent bullying; tougher consequences will be meted out for bullying; and students wanting to promote understanding and respect for all will be more so supported.

In Alberta, bullying is taken up in the Education Act, which received Royal Assent on December 10, 2012, and is specifically addressed by Bill 3. The term ‘bullying’ is defined; school boards will be required to establish a student code of conduct; and the National Bullying Awareness Week will be formalized as Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week.

Of the remaining provinces and territories, most have strategies in place to address bullying, and some have even tabled motions to consider anti-bullying legislation, too. In January 2008, Yukon passed the Safe and Caring Schools Policy, in which bullying in defined and clarification is provided around roles and responsibilities, standards and policies. British Columbia introduced ERASE Bullying (Expect Respect and a Safe Education) – a prevention and intervention strategy building on the province’s Safe, Caring and Orderly Schools Strategy – in June 2012. Saskatchewan announced an anti-bullying strategy in February 2005, which ties into the province’s Caring and Respectful Schools initiative. A year later, in May 2006, Newfoundland and Labrador established a provincial Safe and Caring Schools Policy. Nunavut, though, has neither legislation nor a broad strategy in place specific to bullying.

Finally, Prince Edward Island is presently considering legislation, just over a year after a motion was passed in April 2012 to encourage government in the adoption of anti-bullying legislation. Shortly thereafter, the Northwest Territories also passed a motion, in June 2012, recommending the establishment of a territory-wide anti-bullying campaign and the review of anti-bullying legislation across Canada.

Notes

Funded by