Bills 33 and 101 hand the Minister of Education sweeping control over Ontario’s school system. But two of Ontario’s four school systems hold constitutional rights the notwithstanding clause cannot touch — one defended at the Privy Council in 1916, one written into the Charter in 1982. On this reading, the government’s own carve-outs suggest its lawyers can see the wall. Here is the legal map for everyone standing behind it.
01 / The map of who is protected
Each tile is one of Ontario’s district school boards. Red tiles are under provincial supervision. Outlined tiles hold constitutional protection — denominational (blue, s.93) or minority-language (violet, s.23). The Minister told Global News the unprotected English public boards have “no constitutional cover whatsoever.” Read the inverse of that sentence.
Sources: Board counts — Ontario Ministry of Education (31 English public, 29 English Catholic, 4 French public, 8 French Catholic); FAO, 2022. Supervision count and the three Catholic boards under supervision — CBC News (Mar 5 2026); Globe and Mail (Mar 24 2026). Tile positions are illustrative; the counts are exact.
Sources: 1915 statute and 1916 ruling — [1917] A.C. 76, as summarized in Tiny Separate School Trustees v. The King, 1927 CanLII 9 (SCC) and OECTA v. Ontario, 2001 SCC 15. Bill 33 — Royal Assent Nov 20 2025 (CBC, Nov 19 2025). Bill 101 — OLA, S.O. 2026, c. 4; French boards largely out of the structural scope per Hicks Morley (Apr 2026); CBC (Apr 13 2026).
02 / The 1917 precedent
Section 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 forbids any provincial law that prejudicially affects the rights Catholic separate-school supporters held at Confederation. The Privy Council ruled those rights include having their schools managed by trustees they elect — and that an appointed commission, even one composed entirely of Catholics, could not lawfully replace them.
“The case before their Lordships is not that of a mere interference with a right or privilege, but of a provision which enables it to be withdrawn in toto for an indefinite time.”
Lord Buckmaster, L.C. — striking down Ontario’s 1915 takeover statute, as cited by the Supreme Court of Canada in OECTA v. Ontario, 2001 SCC 15.
Now place Bill 33 supervision on that line. The supervisor’s authority is not confined to finances — it reaches the board’s affairs generally. The orders to date carry no statutory end date and no defined exit test — the deficiency the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association flagged when the bill passed. The residual authority left to Catholic trustees is narrow and undefined — reported as denominational matters by CBC and as certain financial decisions by the Globe and Mail; the two accounts differ, which is itself a transparency problem.
The argument, in one sentence: on this analysis a supervised Catholic board today is governed by an instrument with the same essential features as the one the Privy Council invalidated in 1916 — and the Crown’s defence would be that the takeover is “really” financial and “really” temporary, a characterization the absence of exit criteria makes harder to sustain. Standing belongs not only to boards (which the Minister now controls) but to separate-school supporters — the class of persons s.93 protects.
The Minister said his reform “meets the constitutional test,” and that he took extra time precisely because of it.
Paul Calandra, Minister of Education — Global News, Mar 24 2026 (paraphrase). He also said he was not preparing legislation that would need the notwithstanding clause.
When Bill 33 passed, the Minister said French and Catholic boards would retain their constitutional rights, with trustees keeping authority on French- and Catholic-specific issues.
CBC News, Nov 19 2025 — paraphrase of the Minister’s statement the day the supervision bill passed.
On this analysis, the carve-outs read less like generosity than like risk management — the shape a statute takes when its drafters know where the constitutional lines are.
End The Wait Ontario — analysis, not a quote. The Minister’s constitutional carve-outs for French and Catholic boards are matters of public record (Global News, Dec 5 2025).
03 / The French wall
Section 23 of the Charter guarantees Ontario’s francophone minority management and control of its own schools through representatives it chooses — not consultation, control (Mahe v. Alberta, 1990). When Quebec abolished elected boards under its Bill 40, its English minority took the identical right to court. The structural parallel to any Ontario move on French boards is close, with the languages reversed.
A clear public commitment — that any extension of supervision or restructuring to a French board would meet a prompt injunction application on the Quebec template — is the strongest posture available.
Sources: Mahe v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342. Bill 40 litigation — stay 2020 (Global News); QCCS 2023; QCCA Apr 3 2025 (CBC); leave to appeal to the SCC subsequently sought. CSF de la C-B v. BC, 2020 SCC 13. Minister’s statement — Global News (Dec 5 2025). Bill 101 — Hicks Morley (Apr 2026); CBC (Apr 13 2026).
04 / Why the asymmetry never moved
Ontario funds Catholic schools and no other faith’s schools. Families who found that unfair have tested it in the courts, at the United Nations, and at the ballot box. The courts said the Charter cannot reach it. The UN said it was discriminatory and could not make Ontario move. The one leader who campaigned on levelling up lost his seat.
“Providing funding for the schools of one religious group and not for another must be based on reasonable and objective criteria.”
UN Human Rights Committee — Waldman v. Canada, Communication No. 694/1996 (5 November 1999), finding the differential treatment was not based on such criteria, contrary to Article 26 of the ICCPR.
Door three — the ballot box. In 2007, Progressive Conservative leader John Tory campaigned on extending public funding to other faith-based schools. The party won 26 seats, and Tory lost his own riding of Don Valley West to Kathleen Wynne. The proposal is widely credited in contemporaneous reporting with having dominated and damaged the campaign, and Tory himself later publicly acknowledged the mistake. No Ontario party has campaigned on the question since.
What this section does not argue. Nothing here is a case for ending Catholic funding, or for extending it. Both are live political questions on which this site takes no position, and s.93 rights are constitutionally protected regardless of what anyone thinks of them. Nor does anything here allege that anyone advocating changes to Ontario’s school funding is concealing their aims — we looked for evidence of a staged or disguised strategy and did not find any, and we have said so in print. The point of this chapter is only the narrow historical one: the asymmetry has been tested in the courts, at the United Nations and at the ballot box, and none of the three moved it.
Sources: Adler v. Ontario, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609 (1996 CanLII 148). Waldman v. Canada, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 694/1996, CCPR/C/67/D/694/1996 (5 November 1999). 2007 Ontario general election results; Globe and Mail, “Tory admits faith-based schools funding mistake.”
05 / The clause that doesn’t reach here
Section 33 — the override this government invoked for Bill 28 in 2022 and withdrew within days — applies only to s.2 and ss.7–15 of the Charter. It cannot reach s.23. And s.93 is not in the Charter at all; it is structural 1867 architecture. A government that loses a labour or expression case can legislate around the loss. Against s.93 and s.23, a loss is far harder to undo.
The notwithstanding clause covers only Charter s.2 and ss.7–15. It cannot reach s.23 — and s.93 is not in the Charter at all.
Basis: Constitution Act, 1982, s.33(1) (scope limited to s.2 and ss.7–15); s.43 bilateral amendment procedure — the route Quebec and Newfoundland used in 1997–98 to end their denominational systems, requiring resolutions of both the provincial legislature and Parliament. For these rights, the notwithstanding clause would not assist the Minister even if he reached for it.
06 / The legal avenues
None of these requires new law. Each rests on precedent that is binding, recent, or both — and on a record affected communities can begin to build. This is general legal information, not legal advice; boards and associations weighing litigation should retain constitutional counsel.
Quebec’s English boards stayed Bill 40 before trial in 2020 — the law never touched them while they litigated. If a supervision order or restructuring reached a French board, counsel could seek a prompt injunction: a serious constitutional question, irreparable harm to minority governance, and a balance of convenience favouring elected control.
On this analysis, current supervision could be challenged as the 1915 statute’s modern echo: plenary in scope, indefinite in duration, displacing elected separate-school trustees. The Crown would argue the takeover is “really” financial and “really” temporary — a characterization its supervisors’ decisions and the absence of exit criteria make harder to defend.
Constitutional cases are won on evidence. Communities could request, through freedom-of-information, every supervisor mandate, every decision beyond financial management, and every document bearing on whether an exit test exists. The Auditor General’s May 2026 special-education report already shows one-third of students waiting more than a year for assessment — under provincial control.
Sources: Quebec stay — Global News (2020). Auditor General of Ontario, special-education report (May 12 2026). Supervisor scope — Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025; reporting CBC (Nov 19 2025), Globe and Mail (Mar 24 2026).
The case law gives Ontario real room, and pretending otherwise would be the kind of overreach this site exists to document in others. Reference re Bill 30 (1987) and OECTA (2001 SCC 15) confirm the province’s broad plenary power over education — including centralizing funding and removing trustee taxation powers. Honoraria caps, expense limits, audit requirements, and conditional financial supervision with defined triggers and exits are very likely constitutional for every board, Catholic and French included. Section 93 protects the denominational and management core of rights held by law in 1867 — not every feature of the modern system.
The routes above are framed to succeed precisely because they do not contest financial accountability. They contest displacement — the indefinite, plenary substitution of appointed control for elected denominational and minority-language governance. That is the line drawn in 1916, preserved in 2001, and enforced in Quebec in 2025.
Sixty seconds, while the map is in front of you
Ask your Catholic or French board association, in writing, whether constitutional advice has been obtained on the current supervision regime — and publish the answer.
07 / Questions, answered from the record
What you can do in sixty seconds
The constitution Ontario must obey was written, in part, in response to exactly this: a provincial government reaching into Catholic and francophone schools and replacing the people those communities elected. It happened in 1915. It was stopped in 1916. The precedent is sitting there, undisturbed, waiting for someone to pick it up.
Ontario placed 8 school boards under provincial supervision. But Catholic and French boards hold constitutional rights the notwithstanding clause cannot touch — a line drawn in 1867 and 1982. On this reading, the province’s own carve-outs show where that line falls. The legal map: #EndTheWait
Sources and method
Can autistic students get an educational assistant (EA)?
Schools may assign EAs based on IEP needs, but 47% of families report insufficient supports. EA availability varies by board and often fails to match clinical needs, leaving many autistic students without necessary classroom support.
Source: Ontario Education Act & OAC · Verify Link
Evidence on this page
Key claims are paired with their source, evidence tier, and verification date so readers can inspect the public record directly.