OHRC Submissions on proposal for regulations under the Education Act, related to school boards and local police services

March 5, 2026

Introduction

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) welcomes the opportunity to offer this submission on a proposed regulation under the Education Act, which would govern requirements on school boards to provide local police services with access to school premises, permit local police services to access and participate in school programs, and implement school resource officer programs. 

This regulation allows police services to implement programs for students as young as three years old, without approval from a school board.

The OHRC urges the government to consider human rights implications of regulations relating to police programming in educational settings for young Ontarians in light of systemic discrimination in policing and evidence of disproportionate impacts of such programs on children.  To uphold students' dignity, self-worth, and safety, an evidence-based approach must be used to inform community safety programs that impact Ontario’s schools, particularly where such programs require the routine presence of officers in schools. 

This submission sets out relevant background, specific human rights concerns with the draft regulation, a proposed way forward, and the following recommendations to mitigate the risk of harms to Ontario’s youth: 

1. Embed Code-related rights and responsibilities in the regulation
2. Adopt a Human Rights-Based Approach to program design 
3. Develop a framework for rights notifications 
4. Provide guidance on police participation in student activities
5. Ensure appropriate privacy and information protections are in place

Background

OHRC’s work in education and on policing

The OHRC is a statutory human rights body established under the Human Rights Code (Code). Its primary role is to promote and advance respect for human rights in Ontario. The OHRC achieves this by developing policies, conducting public inquiries, and engaging in strategic litigation. 

For decades, the OHRC has focused on advancing the rights and interests of students, particularly those who are historically marginalized. To support these efforts, the OHRC has created resources and published reports to help identify, monitor, and reduce discrimination in the education system. Notable among these are the:

• Right to Read: Public inquiry into human rights issues affecting students with reading disabilities (2022);
• Dreams Delayed: Addressing systemic Anti-Black Racism and Discrimination in Ontario’s Public Education System (2025).

The OHRC has also undertaken significant work to address systemic racial discrimination in policing, including policing in schools. This work includes:

• Under Suspicion: Research and consultation report on racial profiling in Ontario  (2017);
• The Policy on eliminating racial profiling in law enforcement (2019);
• Framework for change to address systemic racism in policing (2021), which calls for a provincewide review of SRO programs examining their impacts on marginalized students who were most disproportionately affected (see step six); and
• From Impact to Action: Final report into anti-Black racism by the Toronto Police Service (2023).

In addition, in April 2022, the OHRC sent a letter to the York Catholic District School Board in response to a review of its SRO program. In December 2022, the OHRC also sent a letter to the Toronto District School Board in response to a special meeting on school and community safety. As part of its collaborative work on the Human Rights Project in Peel and in response to concerns raised by Black students, parents/guardians, and educators the OHRC also supported community calls to end the SRO Program in Peel.[1]

SRO Programs in Ontario

On May 29, 2025, the Ontario government introduced Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025. On June 30, 2025, the OHRC respectfully submitted its concerns and provided recommendations regarding Bill 33's proposed amendments to the Education Act and the implementation of SRO programs. After limited debate, Bill 33 was passed on November 19, 2025, and received Royal Assent the next day.

Before Bill 33, SRO programs in Ontario were not mandated province-wide.  Instead, the programs were discretionary arrangements negotiated between individual police services and school boards. While police services had access to many of the activities referenced in the proposed regulation, school boards could work with affected communities to place reasonable limits on police presence based on local needs. School boards also had the authority to examine the effectiveness and impacts of SRO programs through program evaluation and community outreach. 

The proposed regulation increases police access to school premises to allow participation in a range of programs set out at section 1(1) of the regulation. These programs or activities include “any activity or event” where parents, guardians or other members of the community have access to the school. As such, school boards no longer have the power to decline, condition, or meaningfully oversee police access to school premises. 

The proposed regulation compels school boards to formalize MOUs with their local police services if the police services have an SRO program. The MOU must state how school boards will share “general Information about the school population and local community with SROs” and involve students, parents, and guardians in the implementation of the SRO program.

The proposed regulation does not indicate how school boards should assess the impact of their SRO programs, nor does it mention whether school boards can pause or terminate their MOUs in response to human rights concerns.

The OHRC submits that the proposed regulation disrupts the relationship between education providers and police services. Potential consequences are compounded by ongoing concerns regarding systemic discrimination in policing, and the role of officers in schools.

Human rights-based concerns 

Equality and discrimination

The Code has primacy over all other laws in Ontario. This means that regulations made under the Education Act must be designed, implemented, and interpreted in a manner consistent with the Code and its remedial objectives. Similarly, policing and public schools are subject to the right to equality guaranteed under section 15 of the Charter.  In accordance with equality principles, regulation relating to policing in schools must account for the systemic barriers that impact the relationship between police services and certain communities, particularly Indigenous, Black, and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, as well as the disproportionate impact policing has based on Code-protected grounds such as disability. 

There is extensive evidence regarding disproportionate impacts of SRO programs. For example, in 2021, the Ottawa Carlton District School Board’s (OCDSB) Office of Human Rights and Equity Advisor conducted a review of its SRO program and found that students from marginalized groups may experience the presence of police in schools more negatively. Survey research conducted for the review found that 62% of Black, 33% of Middle Eastern, 36% of Muslim, 48% of people with disabilities, and 68% of 2SLGBTQ+ respondents disagreed with the notion that police presence makes schools a safer place.[2] Following the review, the OCDSB ended its SRO program and apologized to the students and communities that were harmed by the program.[3]

Similarly, in 2017, the Toronto District School Board ended their police in school program after conducting a comprehensive review, despite measurable support for the program.[4]  Qualitative findings from student focus groups found that most students were “very uncomfortable” with having an SRO placed in their school and felt intimidated by the presence of an officer, which caused some students to stay away from school.[5]

A disproportionate impact on Indigenous youth must be considered in the context of the historical relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the state, including dispossession of lands and forcible removal of children.[6] Nearly thirty years ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in Bridging the Divide: A Report on Aboriginal people and Criminal Justice in Canada asserted: “...Aboriginal communities received proportionately greater law enforcement attention and proportionately less peace-keeping and other services.”[7] This history contributes to negative outcomes including the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in correctional facilities as, “more than four in ten (43%) of youth admissions to correctional services in 2018/2019 were Indigenous, despite accounting for 8.8% of the total youth population.”[8] Concerns regarding race-based impacts and impacts based on Indigeneity are supported by the extensive evidence of racial profiling, which has been demonstrated by the OHRC to be systemic, embedded within police practice, and often difficult to identify. Youth are particularly vulnerable to discrimination in policing such as racial profiling when unaware of their rights when interacting with the police (discussed further below). 

Research from the Canadian Mental Health Association has also found that police often lack adequate information and carry misconceptions about mental illness.[9] A lack of high-quality education in how to respond to people experiencing mental illness can contribute to unnecessary use of force and overcriminalization.[10]

For example, in 2016, the police were called to a school where a 6-year-old Black student was experiencing behavioural deregulation. When the police failed to de-escalate the situation, they handcuffed the child’s ankles and hands behind their back. The 48-pound second grader was then pinned down on their stomach for 28 minutes by the two adult male police officers.[11]

The proposed regulations unilaterally impose obligations on school boards that may affect their duty to students under the Code to provide a safe, non-discriminatory environment. Section 3(2) of the proposed regulations provides that "A board shall not make a local police service’s participation in a school activity, event or program conditional on the board’s approval of any material.”[12] This deprives boards of the governance controls normally applied to external groups and may expose students to unapproved or unvetted content. Police boards open themselves to Code-based liability as they are not trained to develop educational material aimed at young students or on how to ensure that material is compliant with the Code.  Further, school boards may also be liable under the Code if non-compliant material is introduced to students. This is a stark departure from the collaborative crime-prevention approach outlined in the Provincial Model for a Local Police/School Board Protocol.[13]

Disproportionate impact on other Charter rights 

Duty holders have an obligation to ensure that programs or activities prescribed by the regulation do not perpetuate disadvantage by disproportionately infringing rights under the Charter.  In light of ongoing concerns regarding systemic discrimination facing particular communities as set out in the previous section, and the potential for greater police interaction with students, the regulation should guide educators and police services to meaningfully consider how SRO programs could interfere with Charter rights. 

Racial profiling, carding and sections 8 and 9 of the Charter

In addition to violating section 15 of the Charter, [14] racial profiling may infringe the right to be free from arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Charter. Racial profiling can occur at any stage of decision-taking by law enforcement, including the decision to closely watch, stop, question, search, use force upon or arrest an individual.

In Under Suspicion: Research and consultation report on racial profiling in Ontario, the OHRC reported that racial profiling remains widespread and deeply entrenched. Survey results from Under Suspicion note that 57% of Indigenous respondents, 63% of Arab and West Asian respondents and 73% of Black respondents experienced racial profiling. Even more concerning, the OHRC found that youth are particularly vulnerable to certain types of racial profiling.[15] As such, there is a risk that SROs may engage in racial profiling when interacting with students. All options must be explored to avoid this outcome. 

Clear guidance is also required to prevent unlawful carding, an activity which often involves racial profiling. Carding, or street checks, occurs when a police officer stops an individual and requests identifying information without a specific suspicion or investigative purpose.[16] An arbitrary collection of personal information without a lawful basis can violate the reasonable expectation of privacy protected by section 8 of the Charter. Detaining individuals without any suspicion engages section 9. The Community Safety and Policing Act already restricts the collection of identifying information where race is a factor.[17] These restrictions should be explicitly incorporated into the proposed regulations with guidance on how to implement them in the circumstances of an SRO’s duties.

Freedom of association

The proposed regulation requires school boards to provide police officers with access to school premises and participation in learning, mentorship, youth engagement and well-being programs, and extra-curricular activities. Without clear guidance on when and for what purpose officers may attend these activities, their presence will impact students’ Charter right to free association.[18]

This is particularly concerning for student affinity groups, which provide marginalized students, including Indigenous, racialized, 2SLGBTQIA+ students, and students with disabilities, with safe spaces to share experiences, identify needs, and build community. [19] These groups have historically faced over-monitoring and suppression by police, contributing to fear, trauma, and distrust of law enforcement.

Imposing police officers, including SROs and youth engagement officers, on affinity group meetings or similar student-led activities without a clear and justified purpose will undermine students’ sense of safety and belonging, and may contribute to fear or distrust of police services. It may also inhibit open discussion, reduce participation, or deter membership. If affinity and other groups are unable to meet without risk of police interference, students' freedom of association is limited, affecting their ability to fully participate in school life and access the education system.

Mitigating Charter impacts

If a student’s Charter right is limited, that limit must be as little as possible, reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the Charter. The government, police services and school boards must ensure there is sufficient evidence to support that the limits introduced by SRO programs meet these requirements. The OHRC’s previous submission with respect to Bill 33 outlined that currently, there is not enough research to support the claim that SRO programs will minimally infringe on students' rights while addressing school safety issues. 

The proposed regulation does not address how police services will ensure that students understand their rights under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) when interacting with police officers in schools. Students under 18 have enhanced protections under the YCJA when being spoken to, interviewed, or questioned by the police. These rights must be "clearly explained to the young person, in language appropriate to his or her age and understanding," and the police must provide a reasonable opportunity to exercise these rights. [20]also need to understand that police are mandated to investigate disclosures of criminal activity, and that information shared with the police, including spontaneous statements made before rights are explained,[21] trigger a police or Children’s Aid Society investigation, and may be admissible in court proceedings.

Disproportionate impact on privacy and personal information

Section 2(3)(b) of the proposed regulation requires that the memorandum of understanding between school boards and police services detail how boards will work collaboratively with the police service to share general information about the school population.[22] This requirement raises privacy concerns, particularly regarding the potential disclosure of students’ personal information.[23] These risks are heightened for marginalized students protected under the Code, who may be more easily identifiable through shared data.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), Code-based data (e.g., race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed (religion), age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and disability) constitutes personal information. The OHRC is concerned that the information shared with SROs about the school population may include such personal information. [24] This disclosure could contribute to systemic profiling and have a discriminatory impact on students. A further concern is SROs having direct contact with the students unsupervised. While section 32(g) of MFIPPA expressly permits a school board to disclose personal information to the police during investigations, there are no guidelines for disclosure in the non-investigative context.[25] 

A way forward: Adopting a Human Rights-Based Approach

The principles of the Code must be considered and embedded into every stage of regulatory and program development. Without these considerations at the forefront, the proposed regulations risk forcing school boards and police services into positions that would violate the Charter and the Code.

The OHRC strongly recommends that a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) be adopted when developing any program that may implicate rights under the Code. Adopting an HRBA means giving particular attention to people who are most vulnerable or disadvantaged on grounds protected under the Code, such as gender, race, creed, or disability during the development and implementation of a policy, procedure, program or service. This includes ensuring that people are not subject to discriminatory treatment and that policies and programs account for pre-existing sources of discrimination and inequitable conditions. 

An HRBA requires that program developers first identify the human rights context of the initiative and consider the potential Code implications.  Once this assessment is complete, duty holders must work with affected communities to develop an effective engagement process and consider the feedback received. The implementation of the program must include sufficient guidance to duty holders. Once a program is implemented, an HRBA requires ongoing monitoring, not only to assess whether the program meets its intended goals, but also to identify potential disparate impacts.

Effective engagement and consultation

Under a human rights-based approach, engagement is conducted at an early stage to understand the nature of the issue being addressed and the community's view of an appropriate solution.  Community consultation must occur before a program is developed or finalized. 

The importance of meaningful consultation is set out in the OHRC’s Dreams Delayed report which finds:

Any decision regarding police involvement in schools should be made only after carefully considering existing research and in consultation with all local voices, including parents, students, community members and organizations. School boards have a responsibility to ensure that the Code-protected interests of all students are acknowledged and protected when developing strategies to address safety concerns. 

The OHRC welcomes aspects of the regulation that increase opportunities for school boards and police services to collaborate and discuss strategies to address community safety.  For this collaboration to be meaningful and effective, the outcomes should not be pre-determined by the regulation. Feedback from communities regarding discrimination prohibited by the Code should shape the nature of any program before they are implemented. 

To address these issues, the OHRC recommends that the proposed regulation give school boards the authority to make decisions regarding public safety programs offered within Ontario’s schools.

Implementation

If, after effective consultation, a program is implemented, the regulation should embody sufficient guidance to minimize the risk of disproportionate impacts.  An example of the guidance to school boards and police services that could be provided in the regulation is contained in the Provincial Model for a Local Police/School Board Protocol’s statement of principles, which provides that the terms of the agreement are based on “the need to respect the fundamental rights of students, teachers, and staff (…) under the Ontario Human Rights Code.”[26]

In addition to embedding these principles in a memorandum of understanding, the regulation itself should clearly integrate duty holders’ rights and responsibilities under the Code. For example, the proposed regulations should address the duty to accommodate.[27] Without clear and consistent standards for accommodation, students with disabilities and students with trauma from prior negative experiences with police services may face foreseeable harm.

The proposed regulations should also include explicit guidance on how students will be informed of their YCJA rights when interacting with officers, as discussed above.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The regulation should require frequent program monitoring. Centralized data collection, in addition to collection at the board level, would support a provincial understanding of trends that require a systemic solution. The data collected should be disaggregated to identify impacts on Code-protected individuals. 

In 2020, the London District Catholic School Board (LDCSB) suspended SRO programs to examine its impact on vulnerable students. LDCSB conducted a comprehensive review that included feedback from students, parents/caregivers, and graduates. Then, detailed recommendations were provided to a Youth Advisory Committee for feedback. Finally, alternatives to SRO programs were presented to Black, Indigenous and racialized youth during discussion sessions, before they were finalized.  These steps reflect a Human Rights-Based Approach to program development, which is absent from the draft regulation.

Specific recommendations

For many young pupils, the mandatory and routine placement of an officer at their school undermines their safety and disrupts their sense of belonging. Given this reality, legislation should not prevent duty holders in the education and policing sectors from working with students and the community to develop non-discriminatory safety strategies.  To mitigate the risks of a discriminatory outcome, the OHRC recommends the following:

1. Embed Code-related rights and responsibilities in the regulation: To ensure consistent compliance with the Code, the regulation must explicitly require the design and implementation of safety programs that comply with the Code. This includes explicitly embedding language regarding the duty to accommodate, and the systemic barriers experienced by racialized communities.
2. Adopt a Human Rights-Based Approach to program design: The regulations must be amended to ensure a consistent Human Rights-Based Approach. Prior to the introduction of SRO programs, students, families and communities must be consulted, with special attention being paid to the feedback from marginalized communities. This feedback should be used to identify appropriate solutions. Without this consultation process, there is a risk of implementing a solution to a problem that does not exist and harming vulnerable students and community members. The regulation itself must also contain sufficient guidance to duty holders to mitigate the risk of a disproportionate impact on students. If a program is adopted, protocols for centrally collecting and assessing disaggregated data should be developed. Where human rights issues are identified, all options should be explored, including pausing the program.
3. Develop a framework for rights notifications: Students must fully understand their rights under the Code, Charter, and YCJA when interacting with SROs. Without this understanding, students will not be able to enforce or protect their rights. The proposed regulations must specify how age-appropriate information on this topic will be shared with students. Communication must be tailored to students' understanding and maturity and should include information on what steps a student can take if they believe their rights have been violated.
4. Provide guidance on police participation in student activities: The regulation must provide clear guidance on when and for what purpose officers may attend mentorship, youth engagement and well-being programs, and extra-curricular activities, that is consistent with students’ right to free association under the Charter. Specifically, it must address police participation in student activities for marginalized students, including Indigenous, racialized, 2SLGBTQIA+ students, and students with disabilities. Police officers should not attend affinity group meetings or similar student-led activities without a clear and justified purpose.
5. Ensure appropriate privacy and information protections are in place: The draft regulation and its implementation must incorporate relevant privacy and personal information requirements to ensure a consistent approach to protecting students’ privacy and avoid disproportionate impacts on privacy.

[1]Human Rights Project. Recommendation 12(p) states: “The Police School Response Program should be terminated effective immediately allowing the school boards to establish appropriate protocols”. See: Peel Regional Police, Work plan to eliminate racial profiling and racial discrimination between the Peel Regional Police, Peel Police Services Board and the Ontario Human Rights Commission (June, 2023), online (pdf): https://www.peelpolice.ca/en/who-we-are/resources/Documents/OHRP/OHRC-Recommendations-22-June-2023v2-accessible.pdf.

[2] Carolyn Tanner, Policy and Practice Review of Police Involvement in Schools, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, (June 2021) at page 46, online (pdf): https://www.ocdsb.ca/download/481531. 

[3] Ottawa-Carlton District School Board, We Apologize (10 June, 2021), online: https://www.ocdsb.ca/news/we_apologize.

[4] Toronto District School Board Planning and Priorities Committee, School Resource Officer Program Review, (15 November , 2027, at page 3 online (pdf): https://briarpatchmagazine.com/pdf/TDSB_School_Resource_Officer_Program_Review.pdf.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Marcel-Eugène LeBeuf, The Role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police During the Indian Residential School System (2011), online (pdf): https://nctr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/RCMP-role-in-residential-school-system-Oct-4-2011.pdf; Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Path of Reconciliation: Strengthening Trust in the RCMP (2020), online: https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/reports-research-and-publications/rcmp-path-reconciliation-strengthening-trust-the-rcmp?wbdisable=true.

[7] Cited in: Allan S. Manson et al, Sentencing and Penal Policy in Canada: Cases, Materials and Commentary, 4th Ed. (Toronto: Emond, 2024) at page 743.

[8] Jamil Malakieh, “Adult and youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2017/2018.” Juristat. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X (2019).

[9]Canadian Mental Health Association, Study in Blue and Grey: Police Interventions with People with Mental Illness: A Review of Challenges and Responses (2013), online pdf: https://bc.cmha.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/policereport.pdf.

[10] Royal Society of Canada, Caught in the Currents: Evaluating the Evidence for Common Downstream Police Response Interventions in Calls Involving Persons with Mental Illness an RSC Policy Briefing (2021), online pdf: https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/MH%26P%20PB_EN_5.pdf.

[11]JKB v Peel (Police Services Board), 2020 HRTO 172 at paras 153-157.

[12]Ontario Regulatory Registry, Regulation (Work with Local Police Services), Attached to “Proposal for Regulations under the Education Act, related to school boards and local police services” (2025), at s 3(2), online: regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca.

[13]Ontario, Provincial Model for Local Police-School Protocol (2015), online (pdf): https://files.ontario.ca/edu-provincial-model-local-police-school-board-protocol-en-2021-11-02.pdf.

[14] Procureur général du Québec c Luamba, 2024 QCCA 1387 (CanLII) (on appeal to SCC, file 41605). 

[15]Ontario Human Rights Commission, Under Suspicion: Research and Consultation Report on Racial Profiling in Ontario (2017), online (pdf): https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Under%20suspicion_research%20and%20consultation%20report%20on%20racial%20profiling%20in%20Ontario_2017.pdf at page 20.

[16] Ontario Human Rights Commission, From Impact to Action: Final report into anti-Black racism by the Toronto Police Service (2024), online: https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/impact-action-final-report-anti-black-racism-toronto-police-service at Chapter 3.

[17]Collection of Identifying Information in Certain Circumstances - Prohibition And Duties, O. Reg. 58/16. Section 6(1) of this regulation under regulation under the Community Safety and Policing Act provides that an officer must not attempt to collect identifying information from an individual if any part of the reason for the attempted collection is that the officer perceives an individual to be within a particular racialized group, with limited exceptions.

[18]Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

[19]Toronto District School Board, Building Inclusive Futures, online: https://www.tdsb.on.ca/annualreport2024/Stories/Building-inclusive-futures.

[20]Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c 1 at s 146(2)(b).

[21]Ibid at s 146(3).

[22] Ontario Regulatory Registry, Regulation (Work with Local Police Services), supra note 12 at s 2(3)b. 

[23]Section 2(1) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act define personal information as recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,

1. information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the individual,
2. information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved,
3. any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual,
4. the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the individual,
5. the personal opinions or views of the individual except where they relate to another individual,
6. correspondence sent to an institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,
7. the views or opinions of another individual about the individual, and

8. the individual’s name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual.

   Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSO 1990, c. F.31, s 2(1) and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSO 1990 c, F.31, s 2(1).

[24]The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario states that personal information in a school board setting may include:

• Paper records, such as report cards, class lists, or printed special education records, including individual education plans, safety plans, or behaviour plans.
• Electronic records, such as electronic student attendance records.
• Photographs, including yearbook images.
• Video footage, include from surveillance cameras located in schools, or from video collected for professional development.

Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, A Guide to Privacy and Access to Information in Ontario Schools (2019), online: https://www.ipc.on.ca/en/education/ontarios-access-and-privacy-legislation/what-is-personal-information.

[25]Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSO 1990, c. M.56 at s 32(g). 

[26]Ontario, Provincial Model for Local Police-School Protocol, supra note 13.

[27]Toronto District School Board, Police/School Board Protocol (2012). Online pdf: https://ppf.tdsb.on.ca/uploads/files/live/98/1215.pdf. For example, section 14 of the Toronto District School Board's Police/School Board Protocol provides "(A) student with special education needs must receive appropriate accommodations, especially when it is necessary to interview the student. Every attempt should be made to provide specialized supports/resources, as needed, for the student during an investigation.”