2001

What follows is a summary of some of the reporting that OFTP received from this event in Court. Cambridge Case – Part 1 A while ago I wrote a note about a family in Cambridge charged with truancy. As you may recall, the family decided to home school one of their 3 children because of difficulties in school. Today, Mar. 19, 2001 the parents were formally arraigned by a Justice of the Peace in a Kitchener court house with charges laid under Sub-section 30(1) of the Education Act.. They pled not guilty. Their 15 year old daughter is charged under Sub-section 30(5) of the Education Act. She also pled not guilty. The trial was supposed to start at 10:00 a.m. However, the justice who was supposed to preside was still tied up with another case. A last minute substitute was appointed and the proceedings began at approximately 12:30 p.m. The prosecution lawyer, a seasoned lawyer named Mervyn Villemare (I may not have spelled his last name correctly) started the school board’s case with an argument that this case should not be decided by the court but through the inquiry process dictated by the MET and the school board. He cited the 1986 Supreme Court decision in “Jones” to back his arguments. The defence lawyer, a younger individual with about 10 years of experience countered that argument with Ontario Justice Kent’s decision in “Beauchamp” in 1979. As well, the prosecution was getting ahead of itself in using arguments better made during a trial. The justice agreed with the defence counsel and the trial proceeded. The justice then raised the concern – could all 3 be tried at the same time in a quasi-criminal proceeding? Could a possible young offender be tried with adults at the same trial. After hearing some legal arguments but no objections from either party the proceedings continued. The prosecution led the way with six witnesses. A superintendent, an attendance counsellor, a school principal, a guidance counsellor, the inquiry officer appointed by the MET, and the school vice-principal. As expected, all witnesses expressed great concern for the welfare of the child, that it was the sole responsibility of the school/school board to monitor and determine “satisfactory instruction” and the total lack of cooperation from the family. The family had written to the school board in October of 1999 that they were withdrawing their daughter from school and would continue her education at home. This letter was entered as evidence by the prosecution and marked as Exhibit #1. The prosecution also entered as evidence the vice-principal’s response to that letter. In it the vice-principal had stated that the family was now solely responsible for the education of their daughter. Yet, on the witness stand the prosecution witnesses all stated that it was the school/school board’s responsibility to determine satisfactory instruction as suggested in the Supreme Court decision in “Jones”. Under this decision, they maintained, it was their responsibility to examine and approve the resources, materials and work that the daughter did. The school maintained attendance records of the daughter even after she was withdrawn from the school to be taught at home. The attendance records were entered as Exhibit #5. The defence cross-examined each witness on the legal requirements under the Education Act to monitor and assess satisfactory instruction. All reluctantly admitted with some prodding that  they were acting based on a policy developed by the board under instructions from the ministry. All that is, except the inquiry officer appointed by the MET, a Mr. Gary Diamond, former Provincial School Attendance Counsellor and now under contract with the MET as an Education Officer. Mr Diamond maintained, that by inference in Sections 24 through 30 of the Education Act, school boards have the responsibility to monitor and assess home schooling programs. The prosecution also used medical records and letters from doctors and counsellors that the daughter had been examined by. The school had obtained these records earlier via a consent form signed by the father when he was still trying to work things out between the school and his daughter. One letter stated that the medical condition suffered by the daughter would not preclude her from attending school. After the prosecution had completed their presentation of their case the court recessed for lunch from 1:20 to 2:30p.m. The defence began their case by calling the first of three witnesses. The first to be called was an OFTP representative. He was led by the defence lawyer through a series of questions on how home schooled children could successfully pursue post secondary school education without ever being in the public school system. The defence then pursued a line of questioning on the inquiry conducted by the MET. It was brought to the court’s attention that their is no legal requirement for parents to have home school programs approved by the board. Parents who withdraw their child from the public system assume responsibility for their child’s satisfactory instruction and do not require approval from the board. On cross-examination, there was some bantering back and forth between the witness and the prosecution lawyer over case law. The propriety of laying truancy charges versus following the correct procedure in conducting an inquiry first was discussed. The fact that the MET does not carry out “legal” inquiries was brought out. The witness maintained that the Jones decision has no bearing in Ontario for two reasons: 1. Despite the fact that Ontario was represented at the case, the attorney general took no action and, 2. because certification by school boards is required by Alberta law, and not by Ontario law, the decision does not apply. The Beauchamp case is the bench mark for Ontario. The second witness is the star witness. The father was the key defence witness. The lawyer led the father through the various series of events on why the daughter was withdrawn from the school while her twin sister and older sister are still in school. The degree of cooperation between the school