school year. Normally this is an opportunity for positive back to school stories --a new

school year full of hope and promise for the students and the educators who work with them.

Unfortunately, this year is starting differently as the Ford government has thrown the system

into uncertainty with poorly thought out announcements and confusing communications.

As you are aware, the Ontario government issued a directive that elementary educators would

use a revised Health and Physical Education Curriculum starting today.

The older curriculum that the government has re-issued minimizes information and, in some

cases, it has removed completely key topics that are vital for children in 2018.

Teaching issues like consent, LGBTQ relationships, gender identities and many other human development

issues related to today's realities are not only necessary, but vital for student safety,

well-being and inclusivity. The actions of the government to rescind the

2015 curriculum undermines the very safety and well-being of Ontario's students and families.

The world our students live in today is very different than it was in 1998.

The government has taken another action that undermines the professionalism, integrity

and professional judgement of teachers. It has set up a complaint or a "snitch line"

inviting parents to anonymously report any concerns regarding teachers and the curriculum.

In a worse case scenario, this "snitch line" would allow anonymous parents, or anyone as

a matter of fact, to target any teacher for any reason. The potential for abuse is enormous.

But this snitch line is also about creating a culture of fear for Ontario workers where

our professionalism and years of teaching and being educators to thousands of students

is directly being attacked. It is unprecedented and absolutely not necessary. Not in any way.

Educators work every day to foster a positive, safe and inclusive environment for students

and our members deserve the same kind of working environment.

Both actions, on the part of the government, are unreasonable and an infringement on the

rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to teachers by the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. The creation of this "snitch line", ignores

the systems already in place for parents and educators to deal constructively with issues

at the school level. Of equal concern with this snitch line, is

that it is based on the premise that there is a problem with teachers. This fundamentally

undermines parents' confidence in the high quality public education system that elementary

educators deliver. It is the role of government to build the system in a positive way -- not

to toss it into chaos. This morning, I am announcing that ETFO has

just filed an application for judicial review of the Minister of Education's directive on

the 2015 Health and Physical Education Curriculum and the parent "snitch line".

ETFO's application seeks an injunction to direct the government to leave the 2015 Health

and Physical Education Curriculum in place. This is vital to ensure that educators and

school boards can continue to protect the safety and health of students. It also seeks

to stop the operation of this unnecessary and counterproductive complaint or snitch

line. ETFO was forced to take this action because

students need information and answers to their questions to deal with the realities of 2018.

Our union, ETFO, along with community groups and thousands of Ontario residents and parents,

have raised this issue of concern with the government publicly, and through a variety

of advocacy mechanisms. But despite our efforts, our voices as professional educators are not

being heard or respected. As the school year officially begins today our union has no other

choice but to pursue this legal action to ensure that the safety and health of kids,

families and educators are not put at risk. Quite simply, ETFO believes that the government's

actions are an abuse of power and are in direct conflict with teachers' professional obligations

enshrined within the Education Act and the Standards of Practice of the Ontario College

of Teachers. ETFO also believes that the actions of the government are also in conflict with

the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the professional

obligations on teachers as set out in the Education Act and the Standards of Practice

of the Ontario College of Teachers. This is why ETFO is taking legal action on

these issues. In addition, ETFO has also applied to seek

intervenor status in a case that was filed in August by parents and students and is currently

before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal regarding changes to Ontario's curriculum.

I want to end by saying that Ontario has an internationally recognized education system.

One of the best in the world. However, this government is abusing its legislative power

and using students for political gain. The human development of students should not be

used as a pawn to appease some voters and deflect the real issues that are needed to

build better schools. Chronic underfunding caused by an out-dated

education funding formula, violence in schools, a lack of support for students with special

needs and mental health issues, and schools that need extensive repairs. These are the

real issues affecting the learning conditions of students across this province.

ETFO members have always and will continue to act in a professional way that puts students'

needs first and I am proud of that. Now, I would like to, at this point, turn it over

to Howard Goldblatt from Goldblatt Partners LLP who will represent ETFO in this matter.

Howard will explain the application filed this morning on ETFO's behalf to seek a review

and an injunction against this government. When Howard is done we would be happy to take

question. Howard. Thank you Sam and thank you everyone for attending

this morning. I want to try and synthesize what it is that has been filed by ETFO today

and what actually ETFO filed on Friday. So our challenge today, and you'll be provided

copies with it or access to it, is to outline the factual background of this application

and the legal basis for the challenge which in our view, clearly stablishes significant

violations of Charter Rights and professional and ethical standards of teachers.

We're developing and completing a record which will be filed in the court and will include

evidence from teachers and experts on curriculum development and the development and implementation

of the curriculum which is now been reverted to or revoked by this government.

What we are seeking is the following: Both in respect of the directive to return

to the what I would call the 1998 curriculum or the 2010 curriculum, as well as what Sam

has described as a snitch line or others might call it the reporting line.

We are trying to quash the directives issued by the minister in both respects. We are seeking

an order declaring a requirement to return to the old curriculum is being contrary to

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in particular sections 2b which protects

freedom of expression, section 7 which protects personal security and the equality rights

under section 15. We are also seeking an order declaring that

the return to the old curriculum violates the principals of natural justice and procedural

fairness. Just to follow up on what Sam has said, on

Friday ETFO formally intervened in the human rights case that has been brought by a number

of parents and students who claim their human rights have been violated by the introduction

or the reversion to the old curriculum. And more specifically ETFO provided a declaration

which is evidence in support of the request by these applicants to seek an expedited hearing

and to stay of their proceedings. Let me be a little bit focused on some of

the law. The Supreme Court has expressly identified that teachers are the medium for the transmission

of values in our society and key actors in developing civic virtue and responsible citizenship

in an environment free of bias, prejudice and intolerance.

The directive, and the reporting line, fly squarely in the face of these fundamental

freedoms and values. The government has intentionally restricted

the expressive freedom of teachers, prohibiting them from fulfilling their role as educators

and preventing them from communicating accurate information critical to student health, safety,

development and participation in a modern, diverse and pluralistic society.

Their actions increase the risk of physical and sexual violence, transmission of sexually

transmitted infections, cyber bullying and online child exploitation, all of which engage

the protection required by section 7. Lastly, their actions perpetuates substantive

discrimination against diverse and minority students, parents, and members of society

by excluding topics related to sexual identity, sexuality, same-sex marriage, and a merit

of other modern, necessary matters that should be communicated in accordance with the professional

judgement of the teachers. Lastly, the actions, including the reporting

line, unreasonably require and/or coarse teachers into violating their legal, ethical, moral

and professional obligations under the education act, the standards of practice, the ethical

standards of practice, all of which were promocated by the Ontario College of Teachers as well

as the Human Rights Code. So, we are happy to take some questions.

Yeah, well we have said from the very beginning that our members, teachers, need to continue,

should continue to use their professional judgement as Howard has outlined in terms

of their obligations in their professional responsibilities.

They should continue to exercise their professional judgment to ensure that the students that

are in their care are getting the education that they need for 2018 environment in this

society.

You are aware that the CCLA has also field an application and they have sought to have

it heard on an expedited basis. So, we're discussing this matter with them. It is likely

that there will be a coordination with respect to their application, because the courts don't

want to hear things more than once. We are bringing forward, as I have already

indicated, a pretty fulsome record and we are hoping that it can be heard as quickly

as possible. But, you know, the actual timing of it will depend upon the coordination with

the courts, the CCLA and any other potential interveners because I can tell you that there

are a lot of organizations and groups that are very much interested in participating

in this challenge.

Wonderful. Take the snitch like down. It's that simple. It's not necessary. It's not

needed. As I eluded to and Howard has spoken to, there are a number of different avenues

from the school level right up to the root of the college that are in place now and we

don't need an additional snitch line. Let me be clear, that snitch line is not just

for parents, anyone can go on there, from anywhere, and report on a teacher if they

wanted to.

All of the access to the college of teachers, to school administrators, to school boards

is already currently there and it is easily accessible by any parent in any part of the

province. There is absolutely no need for a snitch line

that in my opinion and ETFO's opinion attacks the professional integrity and professional

judgement of our members. So, can I just add this point if I may to

the extent that you're right and there already is a series of ways in which parents and other

individuals can report this to the college then Sam's quite correct take it down, but

as we say in our material the purpose and intent of this is actually to not for the

people who might want to make a report but to act as an intimidating and coercive factor

in respect of the teachers to create a chilling atmosphere with respect to the teachers and

interfere with their expressive rights and so that's really what it's all about there

is a way in which parents can complain and it's always been there it's very clear in

the College of Teachers legislation, but that to the extent that it's now very public it

is intended to have an impact upon educators which is what we think is fundamentally improper.

From a legal perspective yes it's not it's the purpose and effect and the effect of it

is manifest it's clear no doubt about that. And in addition to that just talk to some

of our members across the province we're starting back at school today and the effect that that

snitch line is Howard as outline has had on them.

They're essentially the same arguments as we have with respect to the directive they

interfere with the ability of teachers to express themselves to exercise their fundamental

charter rights under section 2b and they act as a as I say it's a chilling effect so they

contravene section 2b, they contravene the teachers ethical and professional responsibilities

and they also contravene in the terms of which they have an impact at both in the classroom

and frankly beyond the classroom because teachers reach way beyond just the classroom in terms

of the you know the fundamental protection under section 7 and without any question they

have an impact on rights under section 15 equality rights.

A significant impact upon those rights and you know I would ask that you just take a

look at our application we've laid that out very clearly we have some significant facts

in that and the in the argument to the extent that we have in brief form it spelled out

in that.

Well I mean I'm gonna defer to Sam, but let me just say that it has always been the case

that teachers have been able to exercise their professional judgment in expanding upon and

tailoring the curriculum to meet the needs of their students and to meet the needs of

a modern and diverse society and what the entirety of what we have here is to put a

significant constraint and then we say an impermissive constraint on their ability to

do that. And just two other points if I may, one is

the curriculum that the ministry has made available is available online and online only.

There are no professional development sessions set up for our members to proceed on a go-forward

basis. And a simple issue you know a very practical example of the confusion that this

has caused and where teachers are now is let's just take a kindergarten class or a grade

1 class and they're talking about families moms and dads and one of the students in that

classroom puts their hand up and says I don't have a mom and a dad I have two moms.

That's not included in the curriculum that this government released in terms of LGBTQ

relationships same-sex marriage what does that teacher supposed to do? and what does

that child and if that teacher decides to take that as a teachable moment to talk about

same-sex couples is this government going to act and punish that teacher for doing that