Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) to disband a school council and order a new election was central to the dispute.

• Interpretation of the Education Act and O. Reg. 612/00 regarding the independence and governance of school councils was contested.

• The procedural fairness of the TDSB’s decision to disband the council and call a re-election was challenged.

• Compliance with school council bylaws, specifically regarding nomination procedures and the role of the principal and parents in supervising elections, was scrutinized.

• The court considered whether the timing of school council elections, as prescribed by regulation, was mandatory or directory.

• The remedy was limited to declaratory relief due to the expiration of the council’s term and the timing of the decision.

Facts of the case

Rawlinson Community School, a public elementary school under the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), held an election for its School Advisory Council in September 2024. The applicants, parents of students at Rawlinson, were elected as council members. The election process was led by the new principal, who communicated to parents that nominations had to be submitted in advance, referencing the 2022 bylaws, which were silent on nominations from the floor. However, the 2023 bylaws, which were in effect, expressly prohibited such nominations. On election night, two individuals were denied the opportunity to nominate themselves from the floor, and no objections were raised at the meeting regarding the fairness of the process. Subsequently, some nomination forms were found to have been omitted, but those parents were later added to the council.

In the following months, no concerns about the election were raised at subsequent council meetings. However, after a contentious discussion about budget allocations, several parents complained to the TDSB about the election process, specifically the confusion over which bylaws applied and the exclusion of nominations from the floor. The TDSB superintendent, after internal discussions, determined that the integrity of the election had been compromised and decided to disband the council and hold a new election in January 2025. This decision was communicated to the school community, and an information session was held to explain the rationale, citing the superintendent’s responsibility to ensure effective operation of school councils.

Policy terms and clauses at issue

The dispute centered on the interpretation of the Education Act and O. Reg. 612/00, which govern the establishment, composition, and functions of school councils. The 2023 bylaws of the Rawlinson School Council, specifically paragraph 3.1, set out the procedures for elections, including the requirement that elections be supervised by the principal and at least two parents/caregivers, and that nominations would not be accepted from the floor. The TDSB argued that its policies and the superintendent’s responsibilities under its Parent and Community Involvement Operational Procedure PR558 gave it authority to intervene in school council operations. The applicants contended that neither the Education Act, its regulations, nor TDSB policies granted such authority to disband a council or call a new election.

Judicial review and analysis

The court considered whether the TDSB had the authority to disband the School Council and direct a new election, whether procedural fairness was breached, and whether the decision was reasonable. The court found that the Education Act and O. Reg. 612/00 did not grant the TDSB or its superintendent the power to disband a school council or order a new election. The authority to supervise elections rested with the principal and at least two parents/caregivers, and any objections to the election process should have been addressed by them or brought before the court through judicial review. The court also determined that the regulation’s requirement for elections to be held within the first 30 days of the school year was directory, not mandatory, meaning a later election would not necessarily be invalid if otherwise authorized.

Outcome and ruling

The court declared that the TDSB’s decision to disband the School Council and direct a new election was made without jurisdiction and was therefore of no force or effect. No further remedies were granted, as the term of the council elected in September 2024 had already expired by the time of the decision. The court made no order as to costs, in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The applicants were thus successful in obtaining a declaration that the TDSB had acted beyond its authority, but no monetary award or costs were ordered in their favor.