Loffler et al. v. Board of Education of Prairie Valley School Division No. 208, 2009 SKQB 163

• Judge: McLellan, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 07, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2009 SKQB 163;(2009), 333 Sask.R. 245 (QB)

Loffler v. Prairie Valley School Bd. (2009), 333 Sask.R. 245 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.024

Glenn Loffler and William Sluser (applicants) v. Board of Education of Prairie Valley School Division No. 208 (respondent)

(2009 Q.B.G. No. 373; 2009 SKQB 163)

Indexed As: Loffler et al. v. Board of Education of Prairie Valley School Division No. 208

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

McLellan, J.

May 7, 2009.

Summary:

Parents of children who were displaced when their school was closed objected to the defendant school board's decision regarding a "receiving school" for the children. They sought a variety of remedies, including a declaration that the defendant had breached its duty of fairness, certiorari to quash the defendant's decisions regarding bus transportation and mandamus, directing the defendant to provide bus transportation for the students.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2007), 300 Sask.R. 256, allowed the application in part, ordering the defendant to apply its special policy regarding school closures to the parents' requests that their children be bussed to a specific school. Hearings were held in September 2007 and May 2008. The parents' transportation requests were denied. The parents applied for a declaration that the defendant had breached its duty of fairness and for an order in the nature of mandamus directing the defendant to provide bus transportation for the students.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2087

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - General - In May 2007, the defendant school board closed the Glenavon school - Montmarte school was the next nearest school - Former Glenavon students were to be bussed to Montmartre school - However, under the defendant's "open attendance" policy, parents were free to enroll their children in any of the defendant's schools - Transportation to an "out of area" school became the parents' responsibility - Under a special policy regarding school closures, a bussing request by parents of displaced children was to be approved unless one of three negative consequences (impact on other families, increases in cost or in time on the bus) resulted - The applicants were two parents of Glenavon students who decided to enroll their children in the Wolseley school, rather than Montmartre - The parents' request for transportation services to Wolseley was denied - The parents applied for declaratory and other relief - Their application was allowed to the extent that the court directed the board to apply its special policy regarding school closures to the parents' requests - Hearings were held in September 2007 and May 2008 - The parents' transportation requests were denied - The parents applied for a declaration that the defendant had breached its duty of fairness and for an order in the nature of mandamus directing the defendant to provide bus transportation for the students - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court rejected the parents' allegation of bias against certain members of the defendant board - The expression of a strongly held opinion or voting against a certain proposal did not mean that a person was biased - Nothing suggested that any member of the board had taken an irreversible position on the matter - See paragraphs 39 to 42.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Education - Topic 822 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3503

Judicial review - Mandamus - General - When available - In May 2007, the defendant school board closed the Glenavon school - Montmarte school was the next nearest school - Former Glenavon students were to be bussed to Montmartre school - However, under the defendant's "open attendance" policy, parents were free to enroll their children in any of the defendant's schools - Transportation to an "out of area" school became the parents' responsibility - Under a special policy regarding school closures, a bussing request by parents of displaced children was to be approved unless one of three negative consequences (impact on other families, increases in cost or in time on the bus) resulted - The applicants were two parents of Glenavon students who decided to enroll their children in the Wolseley school, rather than Montmartre - The parents' request for transportation services to Wolseley was denied - The parents applied for declaratory and other relief - Their application was allowed to the extent that the court directed the board to apply its special policy regarding school closures to the parents' requests - Hearings were held in September 2007 and May 2008 - The parents' transportation requests were denied - The parents applied, inter alia, for an order in the nature of mandamus directing the defendant to provide bus transportation for the students - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The duty of the defendant to provide transportation did not require them to transport students to any school chosen by the parents - An order for mandamus as sought by the parents could only be granted if the application showed that there was a duty without discretion on the person or body to act in the manner sought - See paragraph 32.

Administrative Law - Topic 3553

Judicial review - Mandamus - Conditions precedent - Existence of duty - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3503 ].

Education - Topic 728

Education authorities - School commissions or boards - Duties respecting students - Duty to transport to and from school - In May 2007, the defendant school board closed the Glenavon school - Montmarte school was the next nearest school - Former Glenavon students were to be bussed to Montmartre school - However, under the defendant's "open attendance" policy, parents were free to enroll their children in any of the defendant's schools - Transportation to an "out of area" school became the parents' responsibility - Under a special policy regarding school closures, a bussing request by parents of displaced children was to be approved unless one of three negative consequences (impact on other families, increases in cost or in time on the bus) resulted - The applicants were two parents of Glenavon students who decided to enroll their children in the Wolseley school, rather than Montmartre - The parents' request for transportation services to Wolseley was denied - The parents applied for declaratory and other relief - Their application was allowed to the extent that the court directed the board to apply its special policy regarding school closures to the parents' requests - Hearings were held in September 2007 and May 2008 - The parents' transportation requests were denied - The parents applied for a declaration that the defendant had breached its duty of fairness and for an order in the nature of mandamus directing the defendant to provide bus transportation for the students - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The duty of the defendant to provide transportation did not require them to transport students to any school chosen by the parents - The defendant's policy regarding transportation to a school other than the school designated as the next closest was reasonable - See paragraphs 28 to 31.

Education - Topic 822

Education authorities - School commissions or boards - Decisions - Duty to act fairly - In May 2007, the defendant school board closed the Glenavon school - Montmarte school was the next nearest school - Former Glenavon students were to be bussed to Montmartre school - However, under the defendant's "open attendance" policy, parents were free to enroll their children in any of the defendant's schools - Transportation to an "out of area" school became the parents' responsibility - Under a special policy regarding school closures, a bussing request by parents of displaced children was to be approved unless one of three negative consequences (impact on other families, increases in cost or in time on the bus) resulted - The applicants were two parents of Glenavon students who decided to enroll their children in the Wolseley school, rather than Montmartre - The parents' request for transportation services to Wolseley was denied - The parents applied for declaratory and other relief - Their application was allowed to the extent that the court directed the board to apply its special policy regarding school closures to the parents' requests - Hearings were held in September 2007 and May 2008 - The parents' transportation requests were denied - The parents applied for, inter alia, a declaration that the defendant had breached its duty of fairness - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The defendant had provided every opportunity to the parents to influence the decision as to transportation of students or to change it - The defendant had fulfilled any duty of procedural fairness to the parents - It was time for closure of that issue - See paragraphs 33 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Palmer et al. v. Board of Education of Weyburn Central School Division No. 73 (1986), 48 Sask.R. 72 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Greenhorn v. Law Society of Saskatchewan (1991), 92 Sask.R. 72 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

Metz et al. v. Board of Education of Prairie Valley School Division No. 208 (2007), 300 Sask.R. 161; 2007 SKQB 269, refd to. [para. 33].

Hardy et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Education) (1985), 22 D.L.R.(4th) 394 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Pearlberg v. Varty (Inspector of Taxes), [1972] 1 W.L.R. 534 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134, refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

Glenn Loffler and William Sluser, appearing on behalf of the applicants;

James R. McLellan, for the respondent.

This application was heard by McLellan, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on May 7, 2009.