Yes No Share to Facebook
Supervisory Negligence:
Failure of Schools to Address Bullying
Last Updated: June 11 2026
Question: Can an Ontario school board or teacher be held liable for failing to stop bullying at school?
Answer: In Ontario, school boards and staff can face civil liability if they breach their duty to supervise and protect students by failing to take reasonable steps to address known bullying, with the standard often compared to what a careful and prudent parent would do in the circumstances, as reflected in cases like 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. For help assessing evidence, documenting incidents, and pursuing a claim or other remedies, Olson Craig Legal provides Lawyer & Paralegals support for families across Ontario, so call (226) 886-2001 to discuss next steps and get clear, practical guidance fast.
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.
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 substantial amount of inquiries such as “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate an urgency for proficient legal assistance rather than a particular title. In Ontario, licensed paralegals operate under the same Law Society that governs lawyers and are permitted to advocate for clients in specific litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are core to this position. Olson Craig Legal provides legal representation within its licensed remit, focusing on strategic planning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.