Under the School Act (the “Act”), School Regulation (the “Regulation”), and related Orders (collected on the Ministry of Education website as the “Manual of School Law”), school boards must establish a student code of conduct. Students are required under section 6 of the Act to abide by the terms of these codes.
When students contravene a code of conduct, they may be subject to discipline, including suspension from school where the conduct is sufficiently serious. Suspended students must, however, still be provided an educational program (usually through the provision of homework). Boards may refuse to provide an educational program to students aged 16 or over (i.e. expel) who refuse to comply with their applicable code of conduct.
School principals have primary responsibility for student discipline. Each school district will have established policies regarding suspension and expulsion of students, and these policies should be a first point of reference for concerned parents or counsel.
Section 11 of the Act requires school boards to establish an appeal process by bylaw, which allows parents or students to appeal decisions significantly affecting the “education, health or safety” of a student to the Board of trustees. Under most appeal bylaws, students or their parents are expressly entitled to appeal suspensions and any refusal to offer an educational program. Appeal processes will usually consist of multiple stages, involving senior education staff above the level of the decision maker, with a direct appeal to the Board as the final stage.
If a section 11 appeal has been heard, a further appeal may be made to the Superintendent of Appeals under section 11.1 of the Act, as long as the matter falls within the scope of section 2 of the Appeals Regulation, which includes, among other things, an expulsion or suspension from an educational program.
Discipline imposed by Boards must be similar to that which would be imposed by a “kind, firm and judicious parent” (Act, s. 76).1 Policies with mandatory consequences for certain offences (e.g. “zero tolerance” policies) have been found not to meet the required standard. As such, policies must provide for flexibility and discretion on the part of the person authorized to impose discipline.2
1 The courts in British Columbia have interpreted these terms in the following way: “kind” to mean affectionate, loving or fond; “firm” to mean constant, steadfast, unwavering or resolute; and “judicious” to mean of sound judgment, discrete, wise, sensible, or marked by discretion, wisdom or good sense (Taylor (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (School District No. 35 - Langley) [1984] BCJ No. 165). | ↩
2 Taylor (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (School District No. 35 - Langley), [1984] BCJ No. 165, aff’d Taylor (Guardian ad litem of) v. Langley School District No. 35, [1985] BCJ No. 2000, 65 B.C.L.R. 197 (BCCA). | ↩