Wrongfully Suspended/Expelled From School for 12 Days
54.1 The applicant was wrongfully suspended/expelled from Connaught Public school for 12 days prior to being given permission to rejoin. So, to summarize the situation,
- The mandatory meeting set up by Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Mary Anne Gage was now suddenly not required.
- The applicants parents were never required to provide the agreed email explaining their sons perspective on the events.
- Additionally, the DSBN had refused to explain to the applicant’s parents what had changed to allow their son to suddenly now attend school.
54.2 Viewing the Niagara District School Board’s G28 Student Discipline page under Policy – School Operations. It will be proven that, unlike what the Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Mary Anne Gage may want to argue, the applicant was unjustly and unlawfully suspended/expelled from Connaught Public School.
54.3 Let’s not forget that the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki are very well aware of what is happening during this time as the parents attempted to seek Warren Hoshizaki’s assistance on this specific matter. And the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki chose to dismiss the parents concerns and passed them off to Mary Anne Gage.
54.4 Therefore, it would be reasonable to believe that at a minimum the Director of Education was keeping himself informed of what was happening and making sure to support their inappropriate behaviors.
District School Board of Niagara G28 – Student Discipline page under Policy – School Operations.
Activities Leading to Suspension
The administrator must consider suspension if a student from grade 4 to grade 12 has engaged in any of the activities listed below, which are outlined in subsection 306 (1) of the Education Act. As of September 1, 2020, students in junior kindergarten to Grade 3 can no longer be suspended for these activities:
1. Uttering a threat to inflict serious bodily harm on another person
2. Possessing alcohol, illegal and/or restricted drugs, or, unless the pupil is a medical cannabis user, cannabis
3. Being under the influence of alcohol or, unless the pupil is a medical cannabis user, cannabis
4. Swearing at a teacher or at any person in a position of authority
5. Committing an act of vandalism that causes extensive damage to Board property or to property located on the premises
6. Bullying or cyber-bullying*
7. Any act considered by the principal to be injurious to the moral tone of the school
8. Any act considered by the principal to be injurious to the physical or mental well-being of members of the school community
9. Any act considered by the principal to be contrary to the DSBN’s Code of Student Behavior or school Code of Conduct.
10. Any other activity that is an activity for which a principal may suspend a student under a policy of the DSBN.
It should be noted that “bullying” and cyber-bullying are defined in the Education Act as follows: “bullying” means aggressive and typically repeated behavior by a student where, the behavior is intended by the student to have the effect of, or the student ought to know that the behavior would be likely to have the effect of,
11. Causing harm, fear, or distress to another individual, including physical, psychological, social, or academic harm, harm to the individual’s reputation or harm to the individual’s property, or creating a negative environment at a school for another individual and,
12. The behavior occurs in a context where there is a real or perceived power imbalance between the student and the individual based on factors such as size, strength, age, intelligence, peer group power, economic status, social status, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, family circumstances, gender, gender identity, gender expression, race, disability or the receipt of special education; (“intimidation”).
13. The definition of bullying behaviors includes the use of any physical, verbal, electronic, written, or other means. In addition, the definition of bullying includes bullying by electronic means (commonly known as cyber-bullying) including:
14. Creating a web page or a blog in which the creator assumes the identity of another person;
15. Impersonating another person as the author of content or messages posted on the internet; and
16. Communicating material electronically to more than one individual or posting material on a website that may be accessed by one or more individuals.
A student may be suspended only once for an infraction and may be suspended for a minimum of one (1) school day and a maximum of twenty (20) school days
An administrator shall consult with the appropriate Superintendent of Education regarding the decision to issue a suspension of more than five (5) days.
Mitigating Factors
Before imposing a suspension, the administrator, as required by the Education Act, must consider any mitigating and other factors as set out in Ontario Regulation 472/07. The DSBN interprets the provisions of the Education Act and Regulations in a broad and liberal manner consistent with the Human Rights Code.
For certainty, these expectations of behavior apply to pupils whether they are on school property, on school buses or other transportation means supplied by the DSBN, at school-related events or activities (e.g., a field trip) or in any other circumstance that could have an impact on the school climate (like cyber-bullying).
54.5 So at this point the applicant has been suspend/expelled for 12 days under what parts of the Education Act are unknown. But what we do know is that the three Caucasian Bullies;
- Marcus
- Hunter
- Natasha
54.6 WERE NEVER suspended, expelled or even sent home by Connaught Public School for all their assaults, even multiple assaults, cruel behavior and words, intimidation, destruction of personal property against the applicant.
54.7 That is correct, not a single Caucasian offender of the applicant’s rights to be safe at school we ever dealt with in accordance to the Education Act. But the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo were quick to suspend/expel the applicant before even giving the parents the ability to speak with their son on the matter.
54.8 The Education Act was enacted to ensure a safe and fair environment for ALL students in ALL school boards. However, the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage, Kevin Maddalena and Jacqueline Ravazzolo have their own policies and practices that have clearly affected the Black student distinctly different than from his Caucasian bullies.
54.9 So to put this in perspective. The DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage, Christopher McInnis, Kevin Maddalena or Jacqueline Ravazzolo never cared that the applicant was consistently the victim of multiple physical attacks, destruction of his personal property and on the receiving end of verbal abuse and hateful conduct.
54.10 They never showed any sympathy for his situation, and they never considered the idea of enforcing and mandated policies that would have protected him and his right to a safe school environment. Instead they offered explanations and excuses or tried to shift the blame from his perpetrator onto him.
54.11 Let’s be crystal clear on this! The DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage, Christopher McInnis, Kevin Maddalena and Jacqueline Ravazzolo DO NOT have the right or the power to decide when and where the Education Act will go into effect.
54.12 Even the bullies who are Caucasian, who attend DSBN schools, under a Director of Education Warren Hoshizaki, who has allowed for his organizational whiteness, sexist, racist, discriminatory hiring and promotion practices to happen. Have to be held accountable for their behavior. It is not acceptable to absolve Caucasian students of responsibility for their harsh and prejudiced conduct against a racialized student, which were obviously in violation of the Education Acts’ provision on Activities Leading to Suspension.
54.13 As the DSBN is a self-governing business, with Warren Hoshizaki at the helm, with obvious internal control that has permitted these decades-long sexist, racist and discriminatory hiring and promoting practice’s to exist. It has allowed the three Caucasian bullies like Marcus, Hunter, and Natasha to never to be suspend/expelled for their inappropriate behavior, whereas the applicant was suspended/expelled for 12 day without cause or explanation. So let’s look at the internal rules that the Education Act developed to deal with situations like the incident’s against the applicant.
DSBN – G-28 – Student Discipline – Administrator Notification to Parents
Where a student has been the alleged victim of a serious incident, the administrator or designate is required to provide information, to the parent/guardian of a student who is less than 18 years of age, is not 16 or 17 and withdrawn from parental control and where the administrator is not aware that informing the parent/guardian would put the student at risk of harm and would not be in the student’s best interests. The administrator may inform a parent/guardian of a student 18 years or older or who is 16 or 17 and has withdrawn from parental control, if that student consents to the disclosure of information.
Likewise, and under the same parameters and restrictions as above, the administrator is to notify the parent or guardian of any student who the principal believes has engaged in the activity that resulted in the harm.
Part A – When students are suspended, the administrator will make every reasonable effort to let their parents know within 24 hours. This will be followed by A LETTER notifying them about the suspension as well as an invitation to discuss supports that may be offered to their child. The letter will include important information, such as:
a) Length of the suspension,
b) Reason for the suspension,
c) The supervisory officer’s information,
d) Information on how and when to appeal the suspension.
e) Supports for Suspended Students
f) Students can be suspended for a period of one (1) to twenty (20) school days.
g) Students who are suspended for more than five school days are considered to be on a long-term suspension and are offered a range of programs to support academics and positive behavior. These programs will be based on the student’s needs, length of the suspension, the nature and severity of the behavior as well as mitigating and other factors.
54.14 This letter MUST TAKE PLACE as it is undeniable that the applicant was suspended/expelled from school for 12 days under the direction of the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo.
54.15 “This WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A LETTER notifying them about the suspension as well as an invitation to discuss supports that may be offered to their child.”
54.16 Therefore, why didn’t the DSBN or any of the individuals involved write this required letter formally notifying the applicant’s parents of their son’s suspension? Why didn’t the DSBN invite them or let them know how to get in touch with possible child support providers?
Ontario.ca – Home Education and Training – School Suspensions and Expulsions
https://www.ontario.ca/page/school-suspensions-and-expulsions/
54.17 And again why didn’t the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo adhere to the required policies that were specified for the circumstance once the applicant had been suspended for 6 days, according to the Government of Ontario.
54.18 It is also evident that the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo did not adhere to the required policies that were specified for the circumstance once the applicant had been suspended for 11 days, according to the Government of Ontario.
54.19 And because the applicant’s DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo suspension lasted longer than five days, it was also considered to be a LONG TERM suspension and NO ACTION plan was never offered or initiated to/for the applicant parents.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/school-suspensions-and-expulsions/
54.20 So why weren’t the parents given this mandated and required letter? And why did the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo refuse to not uphold the mandated requirements as laid out for suspended students according to the Government of Ontario?
54.21 Because according to the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage the applicant was neither suspended nor expelled! Which stood and still stands in stark contrast to Jacqueline Ravazzolo inflexible and adamant statement and position that “This meeting MUST OCCUR before our son can return to school.”
54.22 Keep in mind all the numerous emails that were sent by the parents for clarity with no responses. Why is it again that the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Jacqueline Ravazzolo refuse to not uphold the mandated requirements as laid out as the Principals Responsibilities?
Ontario.ca – Home Education and Training – Principal’s Responsibilities
Principals MUST contact the parents or guardians of students who have been bullied and students who have engaged in bullying, to tell them:
- what happened
- what harm was done to the student
- what steps were taken to protect the student’s safety, including any disciplinary measures taken in response to the incident
- what supports will be provided for the student in response to the incident
https://www.ontario.ca/page/bullying-we-can-all-help-stop-it/
54.23 Is this how the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage, and Jacqueline Ravazzolo conduct with apparent disrespect, clear contempt, and refusal to address the applicant parents’ written concerns? Do they really “want to work together to have a positive and safe experience for your son?”