Peters v. Peel District School Board et al., 2016 ONSC 4788

The courts will apply the standard of care of a careful and prudent parent in cases of school board negligence. The application of that standard depends on the nature of the activity and students.

Date Heard: May/June, 2016 | Full Decision [PDF]

Ms. Peters was injured during a track practice after school on April 19, 2005. She reported hurting her left knee during the practice and had an operation eight months later to repair a tear in the lateral meniscus. She alleged that after the injury and surgery, her condition deteriorated and although she entered university, she did not succeed in her dream of becoming a singer, dancer or actor.

Ms. Peters commenced an action against the Peel District School Board and its employees alleging that they had been negligent and caused her permanent disability, leaving her unable to pursue her career goals. The Court dismissed her case and rejected her claim for damages.

The Court in Peters applied the standard of care principle established in the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Myers v. Peel County Board of Education, for school board negligence claims. Myers found that a school board and its employees owe a duty of care to students known as the standard of a careful and prudent parent. Its application will vary from case to case and will depend upon the number of students being supervised at any given time, the nature of the exercise or activity in progress, the age and the degree of skill and training which the students may have received in connection with such activity, the nature and condition of the equipment in use at the time, competency and capacity of the students involved, etc.

The Court concluded that the Board was not negligent prior to the accident nor at the time of the accident. This conclusion was based largely on the facts that:

  1. The Track Coach was on the field when Ms. Peters’ injury occurred. The Track Coach was complying with the Ontario Physical and Health Education Association guidelines for supervision.
  2. The Track Coach properly instructed Ms. Peters on long jump, and instructed her only to perform “run-throughs, omitting the final part of the jump where the student takes off from the track and lands in the pit.
  3. The Track Coach properly inspected the long jump pit.

The Trial Judge also concluded that following the accident, the Track Coach assessed Ms. Peters’ injury and determined the best treatment, which she communicated to Ms. Peters. She accompanied Ms. Peters and another student into the school and confirmed that arrangements had been made for a ride home for Ms. Peters. At that point, she returned to the field to put equipment away. In the circumstances, her actions were found to meet the standard of a prudent parent.

The Principal gave testimony about his practice of leaving his door open to the foyer so he could actively supervise students and intervene when necessary. On the evening of the injury, the Principal spoke with Ms. Peters and heard that she was waiting for a ride. She did not appear to be in distress. The Court found that the Principal’s interaction with Ms. Peters met the standard of care of a prudent parent.

The Court found that the Track Coach and Principal did not breach the standard of care of a prudent parent in their dealings with Ms. Peters prior to the injury, at the time of the injury or following the accident when Ms. Peters was picked up and taken home. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Even though the action was dismissed, the Trial Judge proceeded to assess the damages. The Trial Judge reviewed extensive medical evidence and concluded that Ms. Peters’ post-accident condition was not causally related to the injury on April 19, 2005, but was more likely related to her excessive weight gain. The other difficulty with her claim was that Ms. Peters self-reported pain that could not be objectively quantified or verified.

With respect to Ms. Peters’ claim that the injury diminished her employment prospects and her aspiration to become an actor, dancer and singer, the Court found no basis to this claim as she undertook little preparation to achieve her dreams. Instance, she did not, at any point, enroll in competitive programs for acting, dancing or singing.

 

Read the full decision [PDF]
Written by

Einav practices exclusively in civil litigation. Her practice focuses on motor vehicle accident, accident benefits, occupier’s liability, slip/trip and falls, dog bites, medical malpractice, solicitor negligence, class action, employment and sexual assault claims.

During her free time, Einav takes improv and Spanish lessons. She enjoys being active, traveling, and spending time with family and friends.