Summary#

Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, 2019, amends four Ontario Acts: the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007, Education Act, Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and Teaching Profession Act. It was enacted as Chapter 3 of Ontario’s 2019 statutes. Its title presents the goal as safe and supportive classrooms; the law does not guarantee that result.

• For early childhood educators and teachers, it adds certain prescribed sexual acts to professional misconduct and requires certificate revocation if a discipline committee finds a member guilty of specified sexual misconduct.
• It clarifies that sexual abuse does not include necessary care-related touching or behaviour, or pedagogically appropriate remarks.
• The Education Act gives the Minister power to set service-animal policies and guidelines for schools and require school boards to follow them and make their own policies in line with them.
• It changes the Ontario College of Teachers’ governance: the number of elected and appointed Council members, committee composition and panel rules can be set by regulation. It also repeals the College’s Public Interest Committee.
• It requires teacher applicants to pass prescribed mathematics-proficiency exams. Some of these Ontario College changes require a later proclamation to take effect.

What it means for you#

• Early childhood educators and teachers: If a discipline committee finds a member guilty of professional misconduct that includes sexual abuse of a child or student, a prohibited act involving child pornography, or a prescribed sexual act, it must reprimand the member, suspend their certificate on an interim basis, and revoke it. A person whose certificate was revoked for specified misconduct generally cannot apply for a new certificate earlier than five years after the revocation order; that does not guarantee a new certificate.
• Children, students and families: The bill says necessary touching or behaviour for tasks such as toileting, washing or dressing, and pedagogically appropriate remarks, do not count as “sexual abuse” for the relevant provisions. This does not say that other conduct is automatically sexual abuse.
• School boards: If the Minister uses the new power to set policies and guidelines and require board action, boards must comply and develop policies in line with them.
• People applying to teach: Applicants must pass mathematics exams if those exams are prescribed and required for registration.
• Ontario College of Teachers: Council membership, committee makeup and panel arrangements can be set through regulations. The law allows the Council to establish a roster of eligible panellists and the Lieutenant Governor in Council to appoint people to it. The bill does not itself set the new numbers or all panel rules.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s cost is included in the supplied materials.

• The materials give no cost estimate for staffing, administration, board policy work, or the mathematics exams.
• The bill does not state an appropriation or create a new fee or fine.

What is unclear#

• The bill leaves the specific “prescribed sexual acts” to regulations; the supplied material does not list them.
• The service-animal policies, which may be set by the Minister, are not included.
• The mathematics exam’s content, pass requirements, exemptions and administration are not set out in the bill.
• Regulations will set Council numbers and committee composition. The supplied material does not give those rules or explain how the repeal of the Public Interest Committee will affect College oversight.
• The supplied material says some Ontario College changes start on a date set by proclamation, but gives no date. It does not include the full current Acts, so the changes’ interaction with current law and regulations could not be verified.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that mandatory certificate revocation sets a clear consequence for serious sexual misconduct found by a discipline committee.
• Clarifying the boundary around necessary care and appropriate teaching remarks may help distinguish professional duties from sexual abuse.
• A Minister-set approach to service-animal policies could give boards common requirements, while still requiring boards to make their own policies.
• Prescribed mathematics exams could set a common proficiency requirement for teacher applicants.

Case against#

• The bill leaves important details—such as which sexual acts are prescribed and what the service-animal policies require—to later regulations or ministerial policies.
• The mathematics test requirement is set in law, but its content and exemptions are not. Applicants and the public cannot assess those details from this bill alone.
• Changing Council and committee arrangements and repealing the Public Interest Committee could alter how the College is governed and scrutinized; the bill does not explain the practical effects.
• The bill gives new administrative responsibilities to the College, the Minister and potentially school boards, but the supplied material gives no cost estimate.