Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mootness argued but rejected in part: sanctions became moot after reconsideration; the live controversy persisted over misconduct findings affecting electoral interests in Carol Ann Sloat v. Grand Erie District School Board

• Late inquiry: the “disclosure complaint” investigation commenced after the Code’s six-month outer limit, breaching procedural fairness

• Report withheld: trustees and the applicant were denied the investigator’s full report contrary to the Code; reliance on a PowerPoint summary undermined fairness and prompted an adverse inference

• Unreasonable outcome: investigator found only disclosure of public-domain facts, yet the Board concluded a confidentiality breach without reasons—an irrational outcome under Vavilov

• Charter claim under s. 2(b) raised but left undecided because the case was disposed of on fairness and reasonableness grounds

• Remedy: decision quashed and not remitted due to post-January 1, 2025 jurisdictional changes transferring conduct matters to integrity commissioners; costs to be agreed or briefed on a timetable

Background and parties
The case involves Carol Ann Sloat (applicant), a long-serving elected trustee since 2003, and the Grand Erie District School Board (respondent), a district school board under Ontario’s Education Act. The Board governs public schools in Norfolk County, Haldimand County, and Brant County. The Board had adopted a trustee Code of Conduct with procedures for investigating and deciding alleged breaches. As of January 1, 2025, amendments transferred jurisdiction over trustee conduct to integrity commissioners. The judicial review concerns a June 10, 2024 Board decision finding Sloat in breach of the Code and imposing sanctions.

Complaints leading to the board’s decision
Two separate complaints were at issue. The “disclosure complaint” alleged Sloat told a trustee from another board that she had brought judicial review proceedings against the Grand Erie Board. The investigator found this was public-domain information and could not conclude any confidential details were shared. The “call the police” complaint arose after a Board meeting when Sloat refused to hand over what she said were her personal notes, not in-camera documents, telling the Chair to “call the police” as she left.

Procedural history
On June 10, 2024, the Board found Sloat had breached confidentiality, duties under s. 218.1 of the Act, and respect obligations under the Code. No reasons were given. Sanctions included exclusion from six meetings, committee restrictions, and a public censure. An internal appeal was dismissed on June 24, 2024 without reasons. In November 2024, in separate litigation involving earlier Board decisions against Sloat, the Divisional Court quashed four prior misconduct findings for unfairness and unreasonableness; leave to appeal was refused on April 3, 2025. On May 5, 2025, the Board reduced outstanding sanctions in this matter to “time served,” leaving the misconduct findings intact.

Issues before the court
The Divisional Court addressed: (1) whether the application was moot; (2) whether procedural fairness was breached; and (3) whether the decision was reasonable. Sloat also sought a declaration that her freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter had been infringed.

Court’s analysis on mootness
The sanctions issue was moot due to the reconsideration decision, but the misconduct findings were not. The court likened the situation to a criminal conviction appeal after the sentence is served: the “record” could affect Sloat’s electoral prospects. Legislative amendments removing Board jurisdiction in future did not negate review of a past decision made while jurisdiction existed.

Procedural fairness analysis
The court found two breaches. First, the disclosure complaint inquiry began more than six months after the alleged contravention, contrary to the Code’s mandatory timeline. Second, the Board failed to give the full investigator’s report to trustees or Sloat, providing only a PowerPoint summary. Relying on its earlier decision in the related Sloat litigation, the court stressed the applicant’s legitimate expectation to see the full report and drew an adverse inference from the Board’s ongoing refusal to produce it, finding this undermined fairness.

Reasonableness analysis
Even aside from fairness, the outcome was unreasonable. The investigator’s findings showed Sloat disclosed only public information, with no conclusion that any confidential material was revealed. Under the Code, trustees could base their decision only on the report’s findings; there was no factual basis for a confidentiality breach. Without reasons and contrary to the record, the decision lacked the hallmarks of reasonableness under Vavilov and warranted quashing.

Outcome and remedies
The Divisional Court quashed the Board’s decision. Since the Board no longer had jurisdiction over trustee conduct, the matter was not remitted. This ended the litigation on the merits.

Costs and closing remarks
The court directed the parties to agree on costs, or follow a set timetable for written submissions if agreement could not be reached. The panel urged both sides to move past acrimonious litigation and focus on serving students and families in the school system.