Extra-Curricular, Voluntary, and Unpaid: When Can School Boards and Administrators Be Sued for Defamatory Statements about a Teacher?

• Published in: Education law journal Vol. 27; no. 2; pp. 205 - 209
• Main Author: Bell, Bianca
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Toronto HAB Press Limited 01.05.2018
• Subjects: Arbitration; Assistant Principals; Boards of Education; Community Relations; Court decisions; Courts; Defamation; Electronic mail systems; Employees; Employer Employee Relationship; Employment; Justice; Labor; Music Activities; Music teachers; Personality; Principals; Public Schools; School Administration; School boards; Singing; Students; Working Hours; Ontario Canada; Canada
• ISSN: 0838-2875

The second provision cited was under the heading "Purpose of this Agreement", which read that [i]t is in the interest of the parties to this Agreement to maintain mutually satisfactory relationships by setting forth certain terms and conditions of employment and to provide a procedure for the equitable settlement of grievances.3 With respect to the law, the defendants referred to the Supreme Court of Canada's seminal decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro,4 which addresses the question of whether the courts' jurisdiction over civil actions is ousted by section 48(1) of the LRA."5 Using the "essential character" test, the defendants argued that the essential character of the dispute related to matters that arose from the music teacher's employment with the Board and her employee-employer relationship with the principal and vice-principal, and that her conduct occurred in the course of her employment with the School Board.[...]the defendants submitted, the music teacher's claim properly fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.In my view, the fact that the Plaintiff's claim for damages for the allegedly libelous statements is made in the context of the spring concert, an extra-curricular, unpaid and volunteer activity of the Plaintiff, in respect of which she has had no disciplinary or other employment related consequences, makes the Plaintiff's dispute with the Defendants, in its essential character, one that does not arise from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the collective agreement.6 The defendants' motion to have the claim struck out was therefore dismissed. 4.COMMENTARY This decision is important for school administrators, school boards, and unionized employees because it marks a new application of the Weber doctrine in the context of a defamation claim made by an employee.[...]this case is also interesting for suggesting, although it has not yet been decided, that principals and vice-principals may be liable for alleged defamatory statements made about employees, despite having acted in their capacity as school administrators and board employees.