The government of Ontario has blocked lawsuits against four major school boards under supervision, raising questions about access to justice and the separation of powers in the province.
Orders in Council were published in the Ontario Gazette on July 11, giving Education Minister Paul Calandra the authority to decide whether legal actions against the Toronto District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, and Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board may proceed.
Figure 1 Ontario Education Act
The Order relies on subsection 257.31(2) of the Education Act which halts all legal proceedings—past, present, or future—without the minister’s explicit permission.
Litigation lawyer and former governor of the Law Society of Ontario, D. Jared Brown, discovered the Order not through a press release or government statement, but in an email from opposing counsel. Brown represents a client currently suing the TDSB, and his case is now affected by the Order.
Speaking with True North, Brown said, “Normally, I’ve only seen this kind of action in bankruptcy cases. It happens so that all parties are frozen in place and no new claims can be brought forward.” While he is now preparing a leave application to continue his lawsuit, it remains unclear whether the Ministry will allow him or anyone else in a similar position to proceed.
According to the Act, when a board is under a vesting order, the minister assumes total charge over all board affairs—including finances, property, operations, contracts, and legal matters.
Because school boards are created by statute and exist under the authority of the Ministry of Education, they are essentially an extension of the provincial government. As a result, this Order in Council effectively means the province now controls whether anyone can sue a branch of itself.
Effectively, the ministry is both defendant and gatekeeper. Individuals and organizations seeking legal remedy must now seek permission from the same entity responsible for the alleged harm.
The Education Act states that the minister’s decision to impose a vesting order “is not open to question or review in any court proceeding.” The minister has unilateral authority to prevent lawsuits, potentially including constitutional claims.
Bruce Pardy, law professor and founder of Rights Probe, told True North that the implications are far-reaching.
“Two parts of the managerial state are fighting with each other. Cabinet is taking away control from the board. But the board is a creation of the province. The problem is, cabinet is not just taking control from the board. It’s also trying to cancel legal rights of Ontario citizens for wrongs the board may have committed.”
Following the Orders in Council, on June 19, trustees were instructed to return their phones and laptops. Some refused to comply, and their devices were shut down days later. Posts from trustees suggest many were unaware that the Order in Council had been enacted a week prior.
The full details of the vesting order that triggered this shift are not announced in the Order in Council itself. This omission has left lawyers like Brown scrambling for clarity and direction.
Pardy sees deeper legal risks.
“The Order-in-Council effectively cancels legal rights of Ontario citizens by subjecting them to the permission of the minister,” he said. “What if, for example, someone is suing the Board for breaching the Charter? After all, the Education Act does not invoke the Notwithstanding Clause.”
There has been no indication of whether the power to block lawsuits will be extended to other boards or limited to the four currently under supervision.
True North reached out to Minister Calandra’s office for comment but did not receive a response ahead of publication.
Editor’s note: The article has been amended to include a correction. The Education Act contains provisions to halt all legal proceedings against boards under supervision. The minister did not give himself these powers as they already existed within the Act.nch now has the power to suppress legal challenges to its own decisions with no avenue for recourse.