In Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario v. York Region District School Board, 2022 ONCA 476, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a school principal and the school board for which he worked had breached the employee right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") when the principal went through a teacher's personal document on a school laptop.


The school had a group of four teachers assigned to teach Grade 2 students.

A number of issues arose in the group and when brought to the union's attention, the grievors – two of the four teachers who made up the group – were advised to maintain a log of any disputes. They created a document tracking incidents and stored it on one grievor's private Google account. There had been reports of the existence of the log of disputes and complaints about a toxic workplace had been made to the principal.

On the day in question, one of the grievors left the Google document open and unmonitored on a laptop in her classroom. The principal went into the empty classroom and saw the laptop on the teacher's desk. When he walked over, he saw that the screen was black and touched the mouse. When he did so, a document called "Log Google Docs" became visible. He read through the document and when he realized that it was the log of disputes, he took photos on his cellular telephone and sent them to the school board.

On reviewing the photos taken by the principal, the school board issued letters of discipline to both grievors for maintaining the log on school property and while on school time and using school technology. The union grieved the discipline.

Procedural history

At arbitration, the union's grievance was dismissed. The arbitrator found that the grievors had a diminished expectation of privacy regarding the information stored on the laptop given that the log of disputes was left open and visible on a school laptop.

The union applied for judicial review of the arbitrator's decision. The majority of the reviewing court held that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable. The dissenting judge found that the Charter had been engaged, and the arbitrator unjustifiably limited the grievors' rights and arrived at an unreasonable decision. The union appealed the majority's decision to the Court of Appeal.

Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.