Last Updated: August 22 2026
Can I hold a school board or teacher liable for not addressing bullying in Ontario?
If your child experienced bullying and the school board or teachers failed to respond with the “careful or prudent parent” duty of care during school hours, you may have grounds to pursue a liability claim such as negligent supervision and inadequate supervision during schoolyard or classroom time. Courts recognize school boards and staff owe students a duty of care in school and on school property, and the standard can vary based on the students’ circumstances and what was reasonably foreseeable at the time (for example, see Myers v. Peel (County) Board of Education, [1981] 2 S.C.R., 21). Defend-it Legal Services can help Ontario families gather key facts using paralegal-led private investigation, background searches & fingerprinting, and prepare organized materials to support your position and next steps. Call (289) 275-3513 to discuss what happened and what evidence you should preserve before making any complaint or potential legal claim.
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 Defend-it Legal Services by phone at: (289) 275-3513 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.
