) ) STEFAN DE MATTEIS, MATTEO BILOTTA v. MARIO BILOTTA minors by, 2017 ONSC 4936

CITATION : De Matteis v.

York Catholic District School Board, 2017 ONSC 4936 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 269/17 DATE: 20170817 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN: ) ) STEFAN DE MATTEIS, MATTEO BILOTTA and MARIO BILOTTA minors by their litigation guardians JOE DE MATTEIS and FRANK BILOTTA ) ) ) ) Daniel Camenzuli , for the Applicants ) Applicants ) ) – and – ) ) YORK CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ) ) Gillian Tuck Kutarna and Kate Genest for the Respondent ) ) Respondent ) ) ) HEARD at Toronto: August 17, 2017 NORDHEIMER J. ( orally ) [ 1 ] The applicants are students of Our Lady of Peace Catholic Elementary School (“OLP”) which is located in the Town of Maple.

After a review of the capacity of OLP and other schools, and the number of students that needed to be accommodated, the respondent determined to close OLP. That decision was made in February 2017 and OLP was closed as of June 30, 2017.

The applicants say that the process followed in reaching that decision was fundamentally flawed and unfair and seek to have that decision reversed through their application for judicial review. [ 2 ] The applicants now bring this motion for an injunction on behalf of themselves and a number of concerned and interested students and students’ parents in the Town of Maple to effectively require the respondent to re-open OLP pending the hearing of that application for judicial review. [ 3 ] While the test for an interlocutory injunction is well-established, the respondent contends that the first factor, that is whether there is a serious issue to be tried, is not the appropriate factor to be applied in this case.

The respondent contends that the injunction being sought here is in the nature of a mandatory injunction and therefore a strong prima facie case must be demonstrated. [ 4 ] I do not view it as necessary to resolve that issue given the conclusions I have reached regarding the second and third factors that are relevant to the granting of an interlocutory injunction. [ 5 ] Turning to those factors, I am not satisfied on the material filed before me that the applicants will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted.

I accept that there is a measure of inconvenience and disruption that will be felt by these applicants and the other students affected. All of the affected students will have to adjust to a new school, a new routine, different travel arrangements, and the like. I also accept that friendships may be impacted insofar as some students are being relocated to one school and others are being relocated to another.

However, none of these impacts rises to the very high level of causing irreparable harm, that is, harm that could not be remedied if the applicants are ultimately successful on their application for judicial review: RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC) , [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 at para. 58 (QL). I note that, in other similar cases, this form of asserted harm arising from such changes was also found not to be irreparable: Ross v. Avon Maitland District School Board , [2000] O.J. No. 1714 (S.C.J.) and Friends of Niagara District Secondary School v.

Niagara District School Board , [2010] O.J. No. 3932 (Div. Ct.) . [ 6 ] Further, the balance of convenience does not favour the applicants. The fact is that OLP has been closed. The teachers have been reassigned as have the students. It is about three weeks to the start of the school year. Contrary to the applicants’ submissions, there is simply insufficient time for the respondent to undo all that it has done as a consequence of closing OLP. Indeed, granting an injunction would cause significant disruption to both of the schools that are receiving these new students and to the teachers who have been reassigned.

Re-opening a school and making it ready for the school year involves a great deal more than just unlocking the doors. [ 7 ] In addition, when considering the overall equities of the matter, I would note that courts are generally reluctant to interfere

with the decisions of public bodies who, by definition, represent the public interest: Canada (Attorney General) v. Fishing Vessel Owner’s Assn. of British Columbia, [1985] F.C.J. No. 86 (C.A.) . [ 8 ] Finally, I would also note that if the applicants are ultimately successful in their judicial review application, there is currently nothing that would prevent the re-opening of OLP at that time in an organized and measured manner.

Any resulting harm to the affected students would then be even more limited. [ 9 ] The motion for an injunction is dismissed. [ 10 ] I have endorsed the Motion Record as follows: “For oral reasons, the motion for an injunction is dismissed. Given the public interest inherent in this matter and the legitimate concerns that the applicants had with respect to the process followed, I would make no order as to costs.” ___________________________ NORDHEIMER J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: August 17, 2017 Date of Release: August 18, 2017 CITATION : De Matteis v.

York Catholic District School Board, 2017 ONSC 4936 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 269/17 DATE: 20170817 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN:

STEFAN DE MATTEIS, MATTEO BILOTTA and MARIO BILOTTA minors by their litigation guardians JOE DE MATTEIS and FRANK BILOTTA Applicants – and – YORK CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Respondent ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NORDHEIMER J . Date of Reasons for Judgment: August 17, 2017 Date of Release: August 18, 2017