When a Student Is Bullied, What Is the School Responsible For? Some Canadian Case Law To Be Aware Of
Caveat - We are not lawyers here at the White Hatter, but we do follow case law and have long said that when schools fail to take reasonable steps to protect a student from peer aggression, commonly known as bullying, they could face legal consequences. There are now court decisions from Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia that show how those responsibilities play out in practice. They also give parents, caregivers, and educators a clearer understanding of what matters when bullying is reported and how a school’s response may be assessed. When a child tells us they are being bullied, the first question is usually a practical one, “What is the school going to do to help my child feel safe tomorrow?” If the bullying continues or a child is hurt, families may also ask whether the school can be held legally responsible. If you have questions about how the cases in this article apply to your situation, we strongly suggest consulting with a lawyer in your province or territory.
Over the past couple of years, Canadian courts have considered the question of school liability specific to “negligence” under different areas of law. An Ontario appeal turned on whether the school’s shortcomings caused a later injury. A Quebec court held a school board liable after finding that staff knew about a pattern of bullying and provided inadequate supervision. In British Columbia, a school board was held responsible under human rights law for its response to years of homophobic harassment. Here at The White Hatter, we think these cases have something to teach families and educators about what happens after a child comes forward.
Ontario and Why The Link To The Injury Mattered
In Rizzuto v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a negligence claim against a school board, principal, and vice-principal (1). In September, the school learned that a student’s knee had been injured in what staff reasonably understood to be a football game. The trial judge found that the school should still have investigated. The judge also found that the accident report was misplaced and that school logbooks were allowed to be destroyed. In November, the student was injured in a separate schoolyard incident.
Two questions were central to the case.
1/ Did the school fall short of taking reasonable care? The trial judge found that it did in several respects.
2/ Would reasonable steps by the school probably have prevented the later injury? The judge found that the November incident was sudden and impulsive. The evidence did not persuade him that investigating the September incident, increasing supervision, or disciplining students would probably have prevented what happened in November.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to overturn that finding. The claim failed on “causation”, the legal term for the link between the school’s shortcomings and the injury. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling binds lower courts in Ontario. A judge in another province can consider its reasoning and decide how much weight to give it. Lawyers call that persuasive authority.
Quebec and What The School Board Knew About Repeated Bullying
In E.C. c. École Saint-Vincent-Marie, 2015 QCCS 5996, the Quebec Superior Court held the school board liable and awarded $10,000 in damages (2). The court found that the board had provided inadequate supervision in the face of a pattern of bullying that staff already knew about. The claim against the individual school was dismissed because the school had no separate legal status that allowed it to be sued, however, the school board did have to pay for damages.
The 11 year old student had been repeatedly targeted by five boys in her class. Her teacher and principal intervened, and things improved temporarily. With several incidents reported over the school year, the court found that staff could reasonably have foreseen further trouble. The judge found that supervision was inadequate, including around the school’s shared washrooms. At the time, the school also lacked a harassment policy and had given teachers no guidance on how to recognize or respond to harassment.
Who had to prove what mattered. Under article 1460 of the Civil Code of Québec, as it applied in this case, once the family established that the boys were minors in the board’s care and that their wrongful conduct caused harm, the board had to show that it had acted without fault in their care, supervision, or education. The board failed to do so. In assessing damages, the judge found it difficult to clearly link some of the girl’s later difficulties, including suicidal thoughts, to what happened at school. The $10,000 award reflected the harm the court attributed to the board’s failures.
Important Note: Quebec is the only Canadian province that uses a civil code as the foundation of its private law. For disputes involving things like contracts, property, or compensation for harm, Quebec courts start with the Civil Code of Québec and look to court decisions that interpret it. The other provinces and territories generally use the common law, where past court decisions and legislation both shape the rules. So the rule about who had to prove what in this case is specific to Quebec. However, the case still illustrates why schools should take repeated reports of bullying into account when deciding how to supervise and protect students.
British Columbia and What Happens When Discriminatory Harassment Keeps Coming Back
In School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v. Jubran, a student was subjected to repeated homophobic insults and physical harassment over several years (3). School staff responded to individual incidents, including disciplining students. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal found that the board’s overall response to the ongoing discriminatory harassment was inadequate. The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld that result. The court also confirmed that homophobic harassment can amount to discrimination based on sexual orientation regardless of how the targeted student identifies or what other students believe about the student’s orientation. The school board asked the Supreme Court of Canada for permission to appeal. The Court declined in October 2005, leaving the B.C. ruling in place (4).
For families and educators, Jubran raises a question worth asking whenever discriminatory bullying continues. What has changed for the student since the school last intervened? A warning or suspension can address what happened on a particular day. If the same child keeps being targeted, looking at the reports together can help the school see where its response is falling short and what the student needs to participate safely in school.
What Parents and Caregivers Can Ask For
Start by listening to your child and asking where and when they feel least safe. It might be a hallway between classes, the bus line, or a group chat where comments made the night before follow them into school the next morning. When you contact the school, describe what happened, when it happened, who was told, and how it is affecting your child. If there have been several incidents, put them in one short timeline. Keep relevant messages or screenshots private and ask the school how to share them securely. If the behaviour includes slurs or comments targeting your child’s race, disability, sexual orientation, or another aspect of their identity, describe those clearly.
Ask for a “safety plan” your child can understand and use. You might say, “My child is worried about going to lunch tomorrow. Who can they go to if it happens again? What can we put in place now, and when will we check whether it’s helping?” A brief written follow up can capture what was agreed to and who will check in with your child. If the behaviour continues, add the new incident to the earlier reports and ask when the plan will be reviewed. If your concerns remain unresolved, ask how to raise them with the school district or board.
What Educators Can Do After The First Report
An incident that sounds isolated can look different once it is read alongside what another staff member heard last week. Record what was reported, what was done, and who will follow up. Make sure the person responsible for reviewing the concern can see related reports, including relevant online behaviour that is affecting the student at school. Tell the student what will happen next and who they can go to if the behaviour returns.
Set a date to check back with the student directly. A child who has stopped going to the lunchroom may have fewer incidents to report and still need help getting through the school day. Ask whether the behaviour has stopped, whether it has moved somewhere else, and whether the student feels able to return to the activities they’ve been avoiding.
The cases from Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia turned on different legal questions. For parents, caregivers, and educators, they bring us back to a practical one, “Once a school learns that a student is being bullied, what reasonable steps can it take to protect that student, and how will it know whether those steps are working?”
Here at The White Hatter, we believe one of the most important conversations happens after the school has acted. A student may go quiet because the bullying stopped. They may also go quiet because they’ve started avoiding the lunchroom, left a group chat, or decided that reporting it again won’t change anything. A check-in gives that student another chance to tell us what their school day actually feels like.
When we ask young people to speak up about bullying, we make a commitment to follow through. That means listening carefully, connecting reports that may have reached different adults, and checking back with the student. For families and educators, that follow-up can begin with one question. “Since we last spoke, what has changed for you at school?” The child’s answer can help the adults decide what needs to happen next.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
