Written By: Ashaz Syed Hussaini
Case Name & Citation
York Region District School Board v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario
Legal Citation: 2024 SCC 22
Legal Terms
An arbitrator, in a legal context, is someone who settles disputes with a neutral lens.
Section 8 of the Charter protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure.
A sunset clause dictates when and/or how a law or contract ends.
Section 32 of the Charter is about its use for governmental application.
Facts
During the 2014-2015 school year, Ms. Shen and Ms. Rai—two teachers employed by the York Region District School Board (YRDSB)—created a private Google Docs log to track workplace concerns like performance evaluations as they believed a teacher was ineffective, only given special treatment by the principal. Stored in the cloud and accessed through personal Gmail accounts, this log was discovered by their principal when he used Ms. Shen’s Board-issued laptop without her consent. He took screenshots of the log’s contents, which later resulted in formal reprimands being written against both teachers.
The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) challenged the disciplinary actions, arguing that their privacy rights had been violated. Although the arbitrator ruled in favor of the school board, the case went through multiple legal stages, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling that determined whether Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) applied to the teachers’ privacy in this context.
Procedural Posture
2018 - Arbitrator's Decision: The arbitrator, Gail Misra, held hearings from 2016 to 2018, ultimately ruling that the teachers had a diminished expectation of privacy due to their use of a Board-issued laptop and prior disclosures. Arbitrator Misra decided that the school board’s interest in maintaining workplace order justified the search. The union's privacy claim was dismissed, and the reprimands stood, though they were removed from the teachers' records in 2018 under a sunset clause.
2020 - Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) Decision: The Divisional Court, under a reasonableness review, upheld the arbitrator’s decision. The majority ruled that the principal’s search was justified under the Education Act due to a toxic work environment. However, a dissenting judge, Justice Sachs, argued that Section 8 applied and had been misinterpreted. Sachs stated that the search violated the teachers' reasonable expectation of privacy, making the arbitrator’s decision flawed.
2022 - Court of Appeal for Ontario Decision: The Court of Appeal overturned the arbitrator’s decision, ruling it unreasonable. The court found that the arbitrator failed to properly apply Section 8. The Court held that the teachers had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the school board's actions violated those rights.
2024 - Supreme Court of Canada: The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, ruling that the arbitrator erred by not conducting a Section 8 analysis. The Court concluded that public school boards, as governmental entities, are subject to the Charter, and the teachers had a right to privacy in their workplace.
Issue & Rule Applied
The central legal issue was whether Section 8 applies to public school boards in Ontario. The case also addressed whether the principal's search of the teachers’ private communications violated their reasonable expectation of privacy under this section.
The Supreme Court, applying the legal framework set forth in the 1997 Eldridge case, determined that public school boards are inherently governmental and thus subject to Charter scrutiny.
The Court also referred to principles from the 2012 R. v. Cole, which recognizes privacy rights in the workplace, particularly with respect to personal information stored on work devices.
Holding
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8 does apply to public school boards, making them subject to Charter protections. The Court held that the principal’s search was an unreasonable violation of the teachers' privacy rights, quashing the arbitrator’s decision. The Court clarified that public school employees, like the teachers in this case, retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their workplace, and the arbitrator’s failure to properly apply the Charter was a critical legal error.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s decision focused on the inherently governmental nature of public school boards, making them subject to the Charter under Section 32. The Court concluded that the arbitrator applied the wrong legal framework by relying on workplace management needs rather than conducting a proper analysis under Section 8.
The Court shone a light on the importance of content neutrality in assessing privacy expectations, noting that the specific contents of the logbook were irrelevant. Instead, the key issue was the potential for personal or private information to be revealed, regardless of its actual contents. The Court also found that the teachers had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the principal's search, conducted without consent or sufficient justification, constituted an unreasonable intrusion.
Result
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision, reversing the arbitrator’s ruling. The Court held that the search was unreasonable and that the arbitrator had failed to properly apply Section 8. The reprimands issued against the teachers were effectively nullified. This decision showed the need for administrative tribunals to consider Charter rights when judging on privacy-related grievances in the workplace—especially in public institutions like schools.
Concurrences & Dissents
While the majority agreed that the case required a correctness review due to its constitutional nature, Justices Karakatsanis and Martin had concerns about the majority’s rigid approach. Their critique focused on maintaining flexibility in administrative law, warning against an overly strict application of the correctness standard in cases involving complex factual and legal issues. They preferred a reasonableness standard for reviewing the arbitrator’s decision but ultimately agreed that the arbitrator’s misapplication of privacy principles rendered the decision unreasonable.
Document with citations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C8ZyOwFyRzRuBaTHw72GuYa1CJeJUS_i6dCQnhJUCAM/edit?usp=sharing
Comments