Can Catholic Schools Receive Government Funding for Non-Catholic Students?

By Teresa Haykowsky, Dave Risling, and Tom Ross

 

Constitutional Appeal is this Week in Saskatchewan

 

Today and tomorrow Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal hears the appeal as to whether the Saskatchewan government is entitled to fund non-Catholic students who attend Catholic Schools.

Decision of Lower Court

On April 20, 2017 Justice Layh of Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench issued a 242 page decision finding that Canada’s Constitution does not constitutionally allow Saskatchewan to provide grants paid on a per student basis to a Catholic school division for non-Catholic students because that funding is not a denominational right of separate schools (see our April 24, 2017, email alert).

Justice Layh concluded that the 1905 Saskatchewan Act only protects separate schools to the extent they admit students of the minority faith.

Facts

In the spring of 2003 Yorkdale School Division, a public school division, closed its community kindergarten to grade 8 school situated in the village of Theodore, Saskatchewan. Its 42 students would be bussed to a neighbouring public school in the town Springside, which is 17 kilometers away from the village of Theodore.

Following this, a minority group of Roman Catholics formed a new separate school jurisdiction under the name of St. Theodore Roman Catholic School Division in the village of Theodore. At trial, the evidence established that 17 of the 26 students enrolled at St. Theodore Roman Catholic School were non-Catholic.

After protracted negotiations with Yorkdale School Division, the newly formed St. Theodore Roman Catholic School Division purchased the school building from Yorkdale and then opened the St. Theodore Roman Catholic School in Theodore.

The public school jurisdiction was discontent with the opening of the Catholic elementary school in Theodore. It legally challenged both the constitutional right of a Catholic school division to enroll non-Catholic students in a Catholic school and challenged the government funding of non-Catholic students who attend Catholic schools.

As noted by Justice Layh, while the community saved its school, their actions prompted one of the most significant lawsuits in Saskatchewan’s history which raised the key issue of the extent of separate school rights under Canada’s Constitution.

Notwithstanding Clause Applied

Following Justice Layh’s decision, on November 8, 2017, Saskatchewan introduced legislation (School Choice Protection Act) invoking the notwithstanding clause which would allow non-Catholic students to continue to be funded by the Saskatchewan government to attend Catholic schools in Saskatchewan.

Upcoming Decision of Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

At stake in this important appeal is the extent of constitutional separate school rights in Saskatchewan.

The decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will have significant implications in Alberta given that Alberta’s constitutional framework for education is parallel to that in Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal will interpret 150 year-old historical constitutional documents to ascertain the scope of constitutional rights being applied in 2019.

What will the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s answers be regarding the following:

• What is the extent of constitutional separate school rights in Saskatchewan?
• Is government funding of non-minority faith students in Saskatchewan’s separate schools a constitutionally protected component of separate schools under the Constitution Act, 1867?

There is little doubt that the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will have significance in Alberta. We will update you as soon as the decision is issued.

Teacher Convicted of Voyeurism: Recording Students Was a Clear Violation of Their Privacy Rights

By: Teresa Haykowsky, James Lingwood, Dave Risling, and Rakhi Pancholi

In 2010 and 2011, an Ontario high school teacher used a camera concealed in a pen to surreptitiously take videos of 27 female students, aged 14 to 18 and a female teacher. The videos focused on their chests and cleavage area and lasted from seconds to a few minutes in length. The students were not aware they were being recorded by the teacher.  A school board policy in effect at the relevant time prohibited recordings of the kind done by the teacher.

The teacher was charged with voyeurism under section 162(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which makes it an offence for a person to surreptitiously observe or record another person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if the observation or recording is for a sexual purpose. The two key issues were whether the teacher had made the recordings for a sexual purpose and whether the subjects of the videos were in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The main issue on the appeal in R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 to the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy at school. Today, the Supreme Court allowed the Crown’s appeal and entered a conviction for voyeurism.

Chief Justice Wagner said the recordings left no doubt that, in the circumstances, the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy and this was breached. Some of the highlights of excerpts of the decision are as follows:

• The determination of whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy requires an assessment of the entire context in which the recording took place;
• Privacy is not an all-or-nothing concept. Simply because a person is in circumstances where they do not expect complete privacy does not mean they waive all reasonable expectations of privacy. The fact that a person knows they will be observed by others, including by strangers, does not in itself mean they forfeit all reasonable expectations of privacy in relation to observation or visual recording;
• Students’ expectations of privacy with respect to observation and recording are different and must be lower in the common areas of a school than when they are in traditionally private locations, such as bathrooms.
• A high school is not an entirely “public” place. Access to schools is usually restricted to certain persons, such as students, teachers and staff.  Schools are subject to formal rules and informal norms of behaviour, including with respect to visual recording, that may not exist in other quasi-public locations.
• There are profound differences between the effect on privacy resulting from the school’s security cameras and that resulting from the teacher’s recordings;
• Given ordinary expectations regarding video surveillance in schools, students would have reasonably expected that they would be captured incidentally by security cameras in various locations at the school and that this footage of them could be viewed or reviewed by authorized persons for purposes related to safety and the protection of property. It does not follow from this that students would have reasonably expected to also be recorded at close range with a hidden camera, let alone by a teacher for the teacher’s purely private purposes. The teacher’s videos were far more intrusive than casual observation or security camera that would reasonably be expected by people in most public places, and in particular, by students in a school environment;
• The teacher betrayed the trust invested in him by his students.
• It is difficult to imagine a trust or duty more important than the care and education of students by teachers. It is inherent in this relationship that students can reasonably expect teachers not to abuse their position of authority over them, and the access they have to them, by making recordings of them for personal, unauthorized purposes.

Chief Justice Wagner noted that given the content of the videos recorded by the teacher, the Court would likely have reached the same conclusion even if the videos had been made by a stranger on a public street.

Lessons Learned

Teachers are presumed to be in a relationship of trust and authority with their students. Despite being open to students and staff, schools are not public places and that impacts on the reasonable expectation of privacy students may have when at school. While their expectation of privacy may be lessened when it comes to safety and security, it may also be greater when it comes to the relationship of trust between students and teachers.

Privacy is not an “all or nothing” concept. A reasonable expectation of privacy may exist over more personal or intimate recordings and observations, even where there may be no reasonable expectation of privacy more generally.

• Students should be able to reasonably expect their teachers not to use their authority over and access to them to make recordings that objectify them for the teachers’ own sexual gratification;
• Students, teachers and staff must be provided with a safe and caring learning environment; schools are a place whether student physical safety, as well as their personal and sexual integrity, must be protected;
• A school policy prohibiting a teacher from making recordings of students of the type the teacher made would not be at odds with the expected norms of behaviour for a teacher at school;
• Students can reasonably expect the adults around them not to target them for visual recording without their permission.

Des rapports de vérification soulignent la nécessité des protocoles de gestion du risque pour les commissions scolaires

Par: Teresa Haykowsky, James Lingwood, et Dave Risling

La gestion des risques est un élément crucial du travail des conseils scolaires. Les commentaires récents des vérificateurs généraux cités ci-dessous démontrent la nécessité de créer et de mettre en œuvre des processus de gestion du risque à l’égard des contrôles internes utilisés par les instances scolaires. À la lumière de la présente analyse, votre instance scolaire pourrait envisager l’évaluation de ses processus de contrôle internes afin de s’assurer qu’ils fonctionnent correctement et de les améliorer, au besoin.

Rapport de novembre 2018 du vérificateur général de l’Alberta

 

Le ministère de l’Éducation de l’Alberta a injecté 6 milliards de dollars dans le réseau scolaire albertain durant l’année financière 2018 afin de concrétiser les attentes du ministre de l’Éducation.

Le vérificateur général de l’Alberta indique toutefois que le ministère de l’Éducation n’a pas respecté systématiquement ses propres processus pour le suivi, l’évaluation et la production de rapports à l’égard des réserves opérationnelles accumulées, et qu’il n’a pas fourni au vérificateur général la documentation officielle complète sur ses processus.

Rapport spécial de 2018 du vérificateur général de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador

Le vérificateur général a conclu que le district scolaire anglophone de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador n’avait pas respecté ses propres politiques en matière d’approvisionnement et ses obligations en vertu de la Public Tender Act. Les conseillers scolaires et la haute direction du réseau n’ont pas exercé la supervision nécessaire quant à l’environnement de contrôle interne du district scolaire, comme le prouvent les exemples suivants :

• l’absence de processus d’approvisionnement ouverts et transparents pour la sélection des fournisseurs, pour l’établissement de prix raisonnables et justes ou pour la détermination de la meilleure valeur en matière de biens et de services publics;
• le défaut de suivre les recommandations répétées du vérificateur externe pour l’amélioration des contrôles internes dans le but de protéger les actifs;
• la nécessité de vérifier que le personnel a les connaissances, les obligations et la formation nécessaires pour adopter un comportement organisationnel éthique.

Le rapport de 2018 du vérificateur général de la Nouvelle-Écosse

Le vérificateur général a jugé que deux conseils scolaires de Nouvelle-Écosse ont eu recours à des contrôles défaillants pour les fonds scolaires. Les conclusions précises incluent les faits suivants :

• les dépôts en espèces n’étaient pas effectués en temps opportun et l’argent comptant utilisé pour les achats ne faisait pas l’objet de documentation;
• les conseils scolaires n’avaient pas de preuves d’achat adéquates;
• l’utilisation d’argent comptant ne faisait pas l’objet de réconciliation avec les fonds de caisse;
• le remboursement de sommes supérieures à 1 000 $ à des employés était une pratique proscrite par la politique d’approvisionnement.

Le rapport de 2018 du vérificateur général de l’Ontario – utilisation des systèmes de TI et de technologie en classe

Selon le vérificateur général de l’Ontario, les conseils scolaires ontariens ont omis :

• d’évaluer systématiquement la mesure dans laquelle les étudiants utilisent les TI en classe;
• d’évaluer la meilleure façon d’utiliser les ressources de TI pour l’enseignement de la matière au programme;
• de prendre toutes les mesures raisonnables pour éviter l’accès non souhaité aux renseignements sur les élèves;
• de fournir une formation officielle sur la sensibilisation à la sécurité, et de rédiger des politiques en matière de cybersécurité. (75 % des conseils scolaires ontariens n’offrent ni formation ni politiques, et seulement 6 % des écoles sont sensibilisées aux risques afférents aux TI et ont mis en place un plan de reprise officiel en cas de sinistre.)

Le rapport de 2018 du vérificateur général de la Colombie-Britannique – dépenses de la direction

Si le district scolaire en question faisait bien son travail pour la gestion des dépenses de la direction en général, il devait accroître sa transparence. Il ne divulguait que les dépenses liées aux déplacements ou à l’hébergement lorsqu’un employé recevait quelque chose qui pouvait être perçu comme un avantage personnel (par exemple, assister à une conférence). Pour consulter la vérification, cliquez ici.

Le remboursement des dépenses des employés permet une meilleure supervision que le paiement direct des cartes de crédit d’entreprise.

Outils de gestion du risque pour la gestion des contrôles internes

• Des contrôles internes bien articulés et maintenus réduisent le risque de perte d’actifs, améliorent l’exactitude et l’exhaustivité des renseignements financiers et assurent que la conduite des conseils scolaires est ancrée dans le respect des lois, notamment en matière d’approvisionnement en biens et en services au sein des instances scolaires;
• Le défaut d’agir pour cerner les facteurs inconnus et corriger les contrôles internes défaillants connus ou un mépris des politiques administratives augmente considérablement le risque d’erreurs, de gestes non autorisés, de comportements contraires à l’éthique et de fraude par les employés des conseils scolaires;
• La documentation officielle des processus opérationnels devrait clairement indiquer les étapes à suivre dans le cadre du processus, le moment et la personne qui les effectuent de même que la documentation qui doit être remplie;
• Une documentation de conformité cohérente réduit les risques que les employés comprennent mal ou applique les processus opérationnels de façon inégale;
• La mise en place de toutes les mesures raisonnables reconnues pour éviter l’accès non souhaité aux renseignements d’un étudiant, d’un enseignant ou d’un membre du personnel, l’application de politiques de cybersécurité bien étayées et la prestation d’une formation pour la sensibilisation à la sécurité.

En gérant les risques afférents aux contrôles internes, les instances scolaires peuvent élaborer, maintenir, surveiller et mettre à jour adéquatement leurs procédures de contrôle internes.

Auditor General Reports Highlight a Need for Stronger Internal Controls by School Boards

By: Teresa Haykowsky, James Lingwood, and Dave Risling

Managing risk is an important component of school board work.  Comments from recent Auditor Generals included below demonstrate the need to create and implement risk management processes over the internal controls used by school jurisdictions. In light of this commentary, your school jurisdiction may wish to audit its internal control processes to ensure they are working and to improve them as required.

November 2018 Report of Alberta's Auditor General

 

Alberta's Department of Education provided $6 billion to Alberta school jurisdictions for the 2018 fiscal year to execute Minister of Education's expectations.

Alberta’s Auditor General found that the Department of Education failed to consistently follow its own processes for monitoring, assessing, and reporting on school jurisdictions’ accumulated operating reserves and failed to provide the Auditor General with complete formal documentation of its processes.

2018 Special Report - Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador

The Auditor General determined that the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District failed to comply with its own procurement policies and its obligations under the Public Tender Act. School board trustees and senior management failed to exercise the required oversight over the school district's internal control environment as seen in these examples:

• lack of open and transparent procurement process in the selection of vendors and establishment of fair and reasonable prices, or best value, for public goods and services;
• failure to address repeated recommendations from the external auditor to improve internal controls for safeguarding assets;
• the need to ensure staff had sufficient knowledge, training and responsibility for ethical organizational behaviour.

2018 Report of Nova Scotia's Auditor General

The Auditor General determined that two Nova Scotia school boards demonstrated weak controls over school-based funds. Specific findings included determinations that:

• cash deposits were untimely;
• the boards had insufficient proof of purchases;
• cash activity was not reconciled to cash floats; and
• a reimbursement to employee over $1,000 was contrary to the board’s own purchasing policy.

2018 Report of Ontario's Auditor General - IT System Use and Classroom Technology

According to Ontario's Auditor General, Ontario school boards have not:

• systematically assessed to what extent their students are using IT in the classroom;
• assessed how to best use IT resources in curriculum delivery;
• taken all reasonable steps to prevent unwanted access to student information; nor,
• provided formal security awareness training, and did not draft cyber security policies. (75% of Ontario school boards do not provide either and only 6% of school boards are aware of IT risks and have a formal disaster recovery plan).

2018 B.C.'s Auditor General Report – Executive Expenses 

While the school district in question was doing a good job of managing executive expenses overall, it needed to improve transparency. The Board only disclosed travel and accommodation expenses where an employee could be seen to have received personal benefit (ex. attending a conference). To see the audit, click here.

Reimbursements of employee expenses provides for greater oversight than paying the corporate credit card bills directly.

Risk Management Tools to Manage Internal Controls

• Properly articulated and maintained internal controls reduce the risk of asset loss, improve the completeness and accuracy of financial information, and ensure that the conduct of school boards is legally sound, including in the area of the procurement of goods and services;
• Lack of action to address known internal deficient controls or a disregard of administrative policies significantly increases the risk of errors, unauthorized actions, unethical behaviour and fraud by school board employees;
• Formal documentation of operational processes should clearly articulate what steps in the process must be applied, when, by whom, and what documentation is to be filled out;
• Consistent documentation of compliance reduces the risks of employees misunderstanding or inconsistently applying operational processes;
• Take all identified and reasonable steps to prevent unwanted access to student, teacher and staff information, maintain clearly drafted cyber security policies and provide security awareness training.
• In managing the risk associated with internal controls, school jurisdictions must properly develop, maintain, monitor and update their internal control procedures

Falsification of Student Marks Justifies Teacher Termination

Author: Teresa Haykowsky

On February 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a teacher's request to have his case heard before Canada's highest Court further to a 2016 decision of Ontario's Court of Appeal in regard to a teacher who was fired for cause for having falsifying student marks.

Ontario's appellate court had overturned the 2014 decision of the trial judge who disagreed with the School's decision to fire the teacher for cause even though:

• The teacher's marks for an interim report card were late and incomplete.
• The teacher falsified marks on students' records.
• The teacher lied to the School about how the marks were calculated.
• The teacher lied to the Court about how student presentations were marked.

The Trial Judge would have preferred that a reprimand and warning letter be issued to the teacher.

What Court of Appeal Found

The Court of Appeal said the teacher's actions were incompatible with his teaching professional duties and contractual terms. In addition the teacher exposed the School to the potential harm of losing its right to issue student credits toward a high school diploma.

The School had placed a large degree of trust in the teacher to objectively and correctly assign student marks and grades. The teacher breached the special position of trust required of teachers as described in 1996 by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Teachers are inextricably linked to the integrity of the school system. Teachers occupy positions of trust and confidence, and exert considerable influence over their students as a result of their positions. The conduct of a teacher bears directly upon the community's perception of the ability of the teacher to fulfil such a position of trust and influence, and upon the community's confidence in the public school system as a whole.

Tips and Takeaways

• Teachers hold a relationship of trust which creates fundamental duties.
• Teachers must provide truthful, objective and continuous student assessments and evaluations.
• Failing to properly assign marks and to evaluate student progress, falsifying students grades and lying about these types of actions constitutes serious teacher misconduct which may justify terminating employment for cause (even teachers with long service who have a relatively clean record).
• In assessing misconduct and determining whether just cause exists, school board employers may also consider the severity of the potential harm to the school.
• Obviously, if an employer is considering an employee termination for cause, it would need to ensure that the employee's alleged misconduct is serious.

Welcome!

Welcome to our inaugural Education Law Blog. We are excited to keep you up to date with the latest topics and information on everything related to Education Law.

We are a team of lawyers with diverse backgrounds including labour and employment law, constitutional law, human rights, litigation, and corporate commercial matters; all with a common interest and experience in the education law field.

Led by Teresa Haykowsky, our group we will be providing updates on governance and all board, school board trustee, teacher, student, parent and stakeholder-related matters.


Please note that any information shared on this blog is a general overview of the subject matter and cannot be regarded as legal advice. Please contact Teresa Haykowsky for advice on this or another Education Law topic.