For parents across Ontario, sending a child to school requires a fundamental act of trust. We trust that educators and administrators will not only provide academic instruction but also ensure the physical safety and emotional well-being of the students in their care. When that trust is broken through incidents of bullying or violence, the natural instinct is to look to the school board for accountability. However, as a recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal demonstrates, establishing legal liability requires more than proving that the school made mistakes. It requires a precise, unbreakable link between the school’s errors and the injury suffered.

The recent case of Rizzuto v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board serves as a stark reminder of the complexities inherent in personal injury litigation involving school supervision. It highlights the critical legal distinction between a breach of the standard of care and the concept of causation. For prospective plaintiffs, understanding this distinction is vital to managing expectations and understanding the rigorous evidential burdens required to succeed in a civil claim for damages.

The Factual Matrix of the Rizzuto Case

To understand the legal outcome, it is essential to closely examine the timeline of events that led to this matter being brought before the courts. The case centers on the plaintiff, who was ten years old at the time of the relevant events in 2009. He was a student at Holy Name of Mary elementary school, under the jurisdiction of the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board.

The litigation stemmed from a physical altercation that occurred on November 23, 2009, in the schoolyard. During this incident, the plaintiff was assaulted and injured by two other students. While the students responsible for the violence were initially named as defendants, they settled with the plaintiffs before the trial, leaving the School Board, the principal, and the vice-principal as the remaining defendants.

The crux of the plaintiffs’ argument did not rest solely on the November incident. They argued that a pattern of behaviour had been ignored. Specifically, they pointed to an earlier event on September 18, 2009. On that date, the plaintiff suffered a knee injury. The plaintiffs (the child and his parents) contended this was an incident of bullying that the school failed to address. They argued that if the school had conducted a thorough investigation and managed the September event effectively, the subsequent and more severe incident in November would have been prevented.

The Allegations of Negligence and Administrative Failures

The lawsuit was framed in negligence. In Ontario law, to succeed in a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove four elements: a duty of care, a breach of the standard of care, causation, and damages. There was no dispute that the school owed the plaintiff a duty of care; schools act in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) and have a statutory and common law duty to protect students from foreseeable harm.

At the trial level, the judge made several significant findings that initially appeared to favour the plaintiffs. The trial judge found that the school administration had indeed breached the standard of care in several respects regarding the incident that occurred on September 18th.

The court found that the school had failed to adequately investigate the September incident. Furthermore, the administration had lost the student accident report related to that day and had allowed logbooks to be destroyed. In the realm of public administration and record-keeping, these are serious errors. The destruction or loss of records often creates an evidentiary vacuum that can be detrimental to the defence. The trial judge explicitly noted these failures, confirming that the school had not acted as a prudent educator should have in those specific administrative instances.

The Critical Gap: Proving Causation

Despite establishing that the school board and its employees had breached the standard of care by failing to investigate the September incident and maintain poor records, the plaintiffs lost the trial. The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld this dismissal. The reason lies in the third element of negligence: causation.

It is a common misconception that proving a defendant was negligent is sufficient to win a lawsuit. It is not. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury. This is known as the “but for” test, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Clements v. Clements. The plaintiff must show, on a balance of probabilities, that “but for” the defendant’s negligence, the injury would not have occurred.

In Rizzuto, the trial judge found (and the Court of Appeal agreed) that the administrative failures regarding the September 18th incident were not the cause of the November 23rd assault.

The Misinterpretation of the September Incident

A key factual determination in this case involved how the September 18th event was reported to school officials. The plaintiffs argued it was a bullying incident that should have triggered intervention protocols. However, the evidence presented at trial painted a different picture.

The trial judge found that the September 18th incident was reported to the school not as an act of intentional aggression or bullying, but as a sports mishap. The report stated that the plaintiff injured his knee when another student fell on top of him during a football game. As the court noted, the incident was “reasonably interpreted as having occurred during a football game.”

Because the school officials understood the September event to be an accidental sports injury rather than an act of malice, their failure to launch a bullying investigation (while perhaps procedurally flawed in hindsight) did not logically lead to the November assault. The court reasoned that even if they had investigated the football injury perfectly, it would have likely been concluded as an accident, and no disciplinary measures would have been imposed that could have plausibly prevented the attack two months later.

The Nature of the November Assault

The second hurdle the plaintiffs could not clear was the nature of the November 23rd incident itself. The trial judge concluded, after hearing the evidence, that the attack on the plaintiff was “sudden, unexpected, and impulsive.”

This finding is legally significant in supervision cases. Schools are not insurers of student safety; they cannot guarantee that no student will ever be hurt. They are required to provide reasonable supervision. When an incident is impulsive and sudden, courts often find that even the most diligent supervision could not have prevented it. A teacher standing ten feet away may not be able to stop a sudden punch thrown without warning.

The trial judge explicitly stated that he was unable to conclude that more supervision or stricter disciplinary measures would have deterred or prevented the incident on November 23rd. Because the link between the school’s failures (the lost records and lack of investigation in September) and the injury (the November assault) was broken, the claim failed.

The Burden of Proof and the Role of the Trial Judge

On appeal, the appellants (the plaintiffs) argued that the trial judge should have warned them that he was concerned about the issue of causation. They felt that the judge had an obligation to put them on notice so they could address the specific legal gap in their case.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument definitively. The appellate court clarified the roles of the parties in an adversarial system. It is the plaintiff’s onus to prove their case. The burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action. They must prove every element of negligence, including causation, on a balance of probabilities.

The Court of Appeal stated that proving the causal link was a “pre-condition to recovery” and there was no obligation on the trial judge to advise counsel on what had to be proved. The judge serves as a neutral arbiter, not a legal advisor to the plaintiffs. This serves as a vital reminder that in civil litigation, assuming what is obvious can be fatal. Counsel must rigorously connect the dots between breach and damages without expecting the court to fill in the gaps.

Appellate Review: The Standard of “Palpable and Overriding Error”

The Court of Appeal reviews the trial decision for errors of law or “palpable and overriding errors” of fact. A palpable error is obvious or plainly seen. An overriding error is one that affects the outcome of the case. The Court of Appeal shows significant deference to the trial judge regarding factual findings because the trial judge was the one who saw the witnesses testify, observed their demeanour, and assessed their credibility firsthand.

In Rizzuto, the appellants attempted to argue that the trial judge was incorrect regarding the effectiveness of the school board’s bullying policies. They pointed out that after the November incident was thoroughly investigated, the bullying stopped. They argued that this proved the school would have stopped the bullying sooner if it had investigated sooner.

The Court of Appeal viewed this as an attempt to relitigate the facts. The trial judge had already considered the Board’s policies and the hypothetical outcomes. He was simply not persuaded that an investigation into a football injury in September would have prevented a sudden assault in November. Since the trial judge’s reasoning was logical and supported by the evidence, the Court of Appeal had no basis to intervene.

The Significance of Documentation and Reporting

One of the most practical takeaways from this case for parents involves the critical nature of reporting. The disconnect in Rizzuto occurred partly because the first incident was initially viewed as a football accident, rather than bullying.

For a school board to be held liable for failing to prevent bullying, it must generally be on notice that the bullying is occurring. If an injury is reported as an accident, the school’s duty to intervene under their safe schools policy is framed differently than if it is reported as an intentional assault.

While the school in this case lost the report (a clear breach of their administrative duties), the content of the original report (that it was a football injury) saved them from liability. This highlights the importance of clear and contemporaneous communication between parents and schools. When a child is injured, ensuring the school accurately records the nature of the incident is paramount. If a parent believes an injury was the result of bullying, it must be explicitly stated and documented as such, rather than allowing it to be categorized as rough play or a sports mishap.

Comparing Moral Responsibility to Legal Liability

The Rizzuto decision is a sobering illustration of the difference between moral responsibility and legal liability. A school board can fail in its record-keeping duties and fail to investigate an incident, yet still be found not liable for a subsequent injury if the causal chain is broken.

For families and individuals who have suffered injuries due to the potential negligence of an institution, this case highlights the importance of a comprehensive legal evaluation. The strict adherence to the “but for” causation test protects defendants from being held liable for accidents they could not prevent, but it also creates a high bar for injured plaintiffs. It requires a legal strategy that looks beyond the immediate breach of duty and meticulously constructs the timeline of causation. It is not enough to identify what the defendant did wrong. You must be able to demonstrate, with evidence, how that wrong directly altered the future and caused the harm in question.

Contact Campbell Litigation for Dynamic Advice in School-Related Personal Injury Claims in Kitchener-Waterloo

If your child has been injured at school and you are considering legal action, it is critical to understand not only whether the school breached its duty of care, but whether that breach can be legally linked to the harm suffered. Richard Campbell of Campbell Litigation provides robust legal solutions in personal injury cases involving public institutions, including school boards. Our team proudly assists clients in Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Guelph, Milton, and Stratford. To book a confidential consultation, please call 519-886-1204 or contact us online.