Last Updated: August 22 2026
What legal options do Ontario parents have if a school or teacher failed to address bullying?
If a school or teacher in Ontario failed to respond to bullying, Gutoski Legal Services can help you assess whether a negligence claim for failure to supervise or address bullying may be possible under the “careful or prudent parent” standard, including duties discussed in Myers v. Peel (County) Board of Education, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 21; and Patrick v. St. Clair Catholic District School Board, 2013 ONSC 4025. The principal and teachers have supervision and discipline duties, so the key issues are what the school knew, what they did in response, and whether that fell below the prudent parent standard for the circumstances. For a practical next step, call (289) 902-0227 to discuss timelines, documentation to gather, and how a paralegal can help you prepare a strong liability position for school-board accountability across Ontario.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Liability of Schools and Teachers for Failing to Address Bullying
In recent years, bullying issues have gained much more attention than in the past; and deservedly so. Bullying can, and often does, cause victims to suffer serious long-term adverse affects such as depression, reduced self-esteem, and may even lead to self-harm including suicide. Bullying that occurs within a schooling environment deserves attention from the teachers or other staff who as adults hold a supervisory duty to provide care, including a safe learning space, for each child.
Note: Please contact Gutoski Legal Services by phone at: (289) 902-0227 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
School boards may be liable for failure to properly address bullying concerns whereas a school board is required to provide care similar to that of, "... the careful or prudent parent"; Myers v. Peel (County) Board of Education, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 21 at page 31; Karam v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, [2014] O.J. No. 2966 at paragraph 37. Explicitly, it was said in Patrick v. St. Clair Catholic District School Board, 2013 ONSC 4025, at paragraph 200 that:
“... boards of education and their staff owe a duty of care to students, both in the school and on the schoolyard during official school hours. ... The standard of care is recognized to be that of a prudent and reasonable parent.”
Patrick v. St. Clair Catholic District School Board, 2013 ONSC 4025
As stated above, schools and staff are required to provide a standard of care towards students in a manner that is similar to that which would be provided by a prudent and reasonable parent. With this said, more was explained within the case of Lee v. Toronto District School Board, et al., 2013 ONSC 3085 whereas it was said:
[56] The parties agree on the general standard of care applicable to school boards and staff members. I adopt the statement of Ducharme J. in Rollins[20]: “[At] common law, and under the Education Act, the standard of care to be exercised by school authorities in providing for the supervision and protection of students is that of the careful or prudent parent.”
[57] These words apply with necessary modifications in these circumstances, where the alleged negligence is in the failure to provide adequate supervision, a duty that is referred to in legislation. Under section 265(1)(a) of the Education Act, the principal has the duty to: “to maintain proper order and discipline in the school.” Section 11(e) of regulation 298 requires the principal: “to provide for the supervision of pupils during the period of time during each school day when the school buildings and playgrounds are open to pupils.” Teachers have the correlative duty, under section 264(1)(e) of the Education Act: “to maintain, under the direction of the principal, proper order and discipline in the teacher’s classroom and while on duty in the school and on the school ground.” Section 20(b) of regulation 298 requires a teacher to: “carry out the supervisory duties and instructional program assigned to the teacher by the principal and supply such information related thereto as the principal may require.”
[58] These general supervision duties are context-specific, as the Supreme Court noted in Myers:
[The prudent parent standard] is not, however, a standard which can be applied in the same manner and to the same extent in every case. Its application will vary from case to case and will depend upon the number of students being supervised at any given time, the nature of the exercise or activity in progress, the age and the degree of skill and training which the students may have received in connection with such activity, the nature and condition of the equipment in use at the time, the competency and capacity of the students involved, and a host of other matters which may be widely varied but which, in a given case, may affect the application of the prudent parent-standard to the conduct of the school authority in the circumstances.[21]
While legal representatives such as a lawyer or paralegal may be able to help advocate for liability against schools, among others, parents should also seek the assistance of esteem support groups. In addition to potential claims for negligent supervision against school boards, other legal issues may exist.
Conclusion
A school, including the principal and teachers, have a duty to act in the effort to prohibit and prevent bullying within schools. Where a school, including faculty members, fail to act properly, liability may result.
NOTE: A considerable number of online searches featuring phrases like “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicate an urgent requirement for skilled legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, paralegals who are licensed are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers, and they possess the authority to represent clients in specified litigation cases. Advocacy, legal interpretation, and procedural expertise are key components of this role. Gutoski Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing effective and favourable outcomes for clients.
