Bullying Prevention and Intervention

PPM 144, issued by the Ontario Ministry of Education, establishes the mandatory requirements for bullying prevention and intervention in all publicly funded schools. It requires every school board to develop, maintain, and make publicly accessible a Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan; to ensure parents have a clear path for reporting bullying and understanding what happens after they report; and to apply specific protections for the youngest and most vulnerable students.

This page presents the results of a structured compliance review of 29 English-language Ontario school board bullying prevention policies, conducted in late 2025. None of the 29 boards reviewed achieved full compliance across all seven requirements.

What Parents Need to Know

What is PPM 144? The Ontario Ministry of Education requires every school board to establish a Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan (Policy/Program Memorandum 144). This policy dictates how schools must prevent bullying, how they must intervene when it happens, and—crucially—how they must communicate with parents. It mandates clear reporting paths, strict obligations for notifying parents when serious incidents occur, and specific suspension requirements for student safety.

Why does it matter? PPM 144 exists to ensure that when a child is harmed, parents are not left in the dark. When school boards fail to meet these requirements, families face significant risks:

Unclear Help Lines: Parents may not know who is responsible for addressing bullying (e.g., “Contact the school” vs. “Contact the Safe Schools Lead: {Name} {Email}”).
Reporting Dead Ends: Without a defined reporting process, complaints can be ignored, lost, or dismissed as “informal” conversations.
Lack of Follow-up: Ambiguous escalation paths leave parents powerless if the initial response is inadequate, and children vulnerable.

What we found: Of the 29 boards reviewed, not a single board met all seven requirements. The most common failures were in areas that matter most to parents in crisis: 79% of boards failed to explain what happens after a parent reports bullying, 66% failed to provide a clear escalation path for parents who are dissatisfied with the school’s response, and 79% failed to address the mandatory suspension conditions for students in Junior Kindergarten through Grade 3.

What you can do: Ask your school for the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan. If they cannot produce it, or if the plan does not tell you how to report bullying, what happens next, and who to contact if you are not satisfied, raise the issue with your school board trustee. Boards are legally required to have this information available to you.

What the Directors of Education and Trustees Need to Know

In Ontario, Boards are legally obligated to create and maintain Bullying Prevention Plans that are publicly accessible and compliant with Ministry directives:

Boards are required to establish Bullying Prevention Plans: “Every board shall establish a bullying prevention and intervention plan for the schools of the board and require its schools to implement the plan.” (Education Act, s. 303.3(1))
Boards must ensure plans are publicly accessible: “A board shall make its bullying prevention and intervention plan available to the public by posting it on the board’s website or, if the board does not have a website, in another manner that the board considers appropriate. ” (Education Act, s. 303.3(4))
Principals are equally responsible for communicating the policy: “A principal of a school shall make the board’s bullying prevention and intervention plan available to the public by posting it on the school’s website or, if the school does not have a website, in another manner that the principal considers appropriate.” (Education Act, s. 303.3 (5))

The Education Act give further instruction on this point:

302 (3.4) Every board shall establish policies and guidelines with respect to bullying prevention and intervention in schools, and the policies and guidelines must,

(a) be consistent with those established by the Minister under section 301;

(b) address every matter described in clauses 301 (7.1) (a) to (h); and

For clarity, clauses 301 (7.1) refer to the following:

The Minister shall establish policies and guidelines with respect to bullying prevention and intervention in schools, which must include policies and guidelines respecting,

(a) training for all teachers and other staff;

(b) resources to support pupils who have been bullied;

(d) resources to support pupils who have engaged in bullying;

(e) procedures that allow pupils to report incidents of bullying safely and in a way that minimizes the possibility of reprisal;

(f) procedures that allow parents and guardians and other persons to report incidents of bullying;

(g) the use of disciplinary measures within the framework described in clause (6) (a) in response to bullying;

(h) procedures for responding appropriately and in a timely manner to bullying;

(i) matters to be addressed in bullying prevention and intervention plans established by boards under section 303.3. 2012, c. 5, s. 10 (4).

These policies and guidelines are outlined in PPM 144 – Bullying prevention and intervention (2021), with specific must statements that outline mandatory requirements.

Concurrently, the Director of Education has specific statutory duties to ensure and enforce compliance:

Directors must identify and report potential non-compliance to the Board: “[A] director of education shall… immediately upon discovery bring to the attention of the board of trustees any act or omission by the board that, in the opinion of the director of education, may result in or has resulted in a contravention of this Act or any policy, guideline or regulation…” (Education Act, s. 283.1(1)(f))
Directors must escalate if the Board fails to act: If the board does not respond satisfactorily, the Director must “advise the Deputy Minister of Education of the act or omission.” (Education Act, s. 283.1(1)(g))

Thus, while the Board of Trustees is tasked with creating the policy, the Director of Education holds the fiduciary duty to escalate when the board’s policies fail to align with Ministry requirements.

2025 Compliance Pilot

Overview

Twenty-nine English-language Ontario school boards were reviewed against seven mandatory requirements derived from PPM 144. The review assessed whether each board’s bullying prevention policies contain the specific, actionable content required by the Ministry — not whether the board has expressed a general commitment to bullying prevention.

The distinction matters. Nearly every board reviewed has committed, in some form, to preventing bullying and supporting students. The question this review asks is different: does the policy give a parent the specific information they need when their child is being bullied?

Compliance Checklist

The seven requirements assessed in this review are:

Public Accessibility of the Bullying Policy and Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan. The board must make both its bullying policy and its Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan publicly available. A reference to a plan that cannot be located by the public does not constitute compliance.
Clear Path for Parents: How to Report Bullying. The policy must identify the specific role (e.g., Principal, Vice-Principal) to whom parents should report bullying and the mechanism for doing so (e.g., in writing, by phone, through an online tool). Generic language such as “contact the school” does not meet this requirement.
Clear Path for Parents: What Happens After Reporting. The policy must outline the mandatory steps the administration will take after a bullying report is filed. Vague assurances such as “appropriate action will be taken” or “procedures will be followed” — without specifying the actual steps — do not constitute compliance.
Clear Path for Parents: Escalation. The policy must name the next step for a parent who is dissatisfied with the school’s response. If the policy provides no escalation path (e.g., Superintendent, Board, Ombudsman), a parent whose concern is ignored has nowhere to turn.
Serious Student Incident Classification. The policy must explicitly classify bullying as a “Serious Student Incident.” Boards that describe bullying only as “misconduct” or “inappropriate behaviour” — without linking it to the formal incident classification system — fail this requirement.
Parent Notification After a Bullying Incident. The policy must mandate notification of parents of all involved students (both the targeted student and the student who engaged in bullying) and must include an explicit invitation to discuss supports for their child. Notification without an invitation to discuss supports is insufficient.
Suspension of Students in JK to Grade 3 for Bullying. The policy must address the specific suspension conditions for students in Junior Kindergarten through Grade 3, including mandatory suspension language for bullying motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate, and the requirement that suspension occur only after an investigation.

Methodology

Policy documents were collected from 29 English-language Ontario school board websites between June and August 2025.
For each board, the following document types were sought: bullying prevention and intervention policies, bullying prevention and intervention plans, safe schools policies and procedures, and any related administrative procedures referenced in those documents.
Each board’s documents were assessed against the seven compliance requirements described above using a structured checklist.
Documents were assessed on their content as written. Compliance was determined based on whether the required information is present and accessible within the documents a parent would reasonably be able to obtain from the board’s website.
Internal procedures, draft documents, and materials not publicly available were not considered.

Disclaimer

These findings are based exclusively on documents that were publicly available on school board websites during the review period (June–August 2025). This audit does not represent a legal determination of compliance or non-compliance. The results should be understood as preliminary findings subject to verification; they represent a good-faith assessment based on the documents available at the time of review.

Analysis of Results

No board achieved full compliance. Of the 29 boards reviewed, none met all seven requirements. The highest-scoring boards achieved 6 out of 7.

1. Public Accessibility of Bullying Policy AND Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan (24% non-compliance)

Directive: “School boards must make their plan available to the public either on the school board’s website, or if the board does not have a website, make their plan available in another appropriate manner. Principals are also responsible for making their school’s plan available to the public.” (PPM 144)

Finding: Nearly a quarter of boards failed to make both their bullying policy and their Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan publicly available. In some cases, only one of the two required documents was provided; in others, the policy references a plan that was not available online. his creates an immediate barrier for parents trying to understand the board’s strategy for student safety.

2. Clear Path for Parents: How to Report Bullying (57% non-compliance)

Directive: “School board bullying prevention and intervention policies must include must include … a clear path for parents to follow should they need to report bullying including: where a parent can file a report and with whom.” (PPM 144 § 3)

Finding: More than half the boards assessed failed to provide parents with a specific, actionable reporting mechanism. Common failures include language that directs parents to “contact the school” without identifying a specific role (Principal, Vice-Principal) or method (phone, email, written report, online tool). Some policies establish reporting processes for staff and students but not for parents. A parent whose child is being bullied needs to know exactly who to contact and how — not that a process “has been established” or “is available on the school website.”

Delegation of Duty: A common failure mode was delegating the creation of the reporting path to the principal (“The principal must establish a process”) rather than defining a consistent, board-wide mechanism. This leads to inconsistency where safety depends on the individual school administrator rather than board policy.
Circular Referencing: Some boards stated that reporting information is “on the website” or in a “communication strategy” rather than codifying the reporting method in the policy itself.
Lack of Formal Intake: Without a clear “intake” process (e.g., a specific form or designated officer), parental complaints are susceptible to being dismissed as informal queries rather than official reports requiring investigation.
While some boards offered general contact info, over half failed to define how a parent formally files a report (e.g., in writing, via a specific form, or to a specific administrator).
Without a clear “intake” process, parental complaints are susceptible to being dismissed as informal queries rather than official reports requiring investigation.

3. Clear Path for Parents: What Happens After Reporting (79% non-compliance)

Directive: “School board bullying prevention and intervention policies must include…what steps will be taken following a report made by a parent.” (PPM 144 § 3)

Finding: The most widespread failure across all boards. PPM 144 requires boards to outline the steps the school must take after a parent reports bullying. In practice, the overwhelming majority of policies reviewed contain language such as “appropriate action will be taken” or “the matter will be investigated” without specifying the actual investigation steps, timelines, or communication commitments back to the reporting parent. This creates a “black box” in which a parent files a report and has no basis for determining whether it was acted upon.

Vague Timelines: Policies often used non-committal language like “investigated as soon as possible” without defining mandatory steps or communication intervals.
Staff-Only Focus: Some procedures (e.g., Avon Maitland) mandated communicating investigation results to staff who reported incidents, but failed to extend this same mandatory right to parents who reported.

4. Clear Path for Parents: Parent Escalation (66% non-compliance)

Directive: “School board bullying prevention and intervention policies must include… a process a parent can follow if they are not satisfied with the school’s response.” (PPM 144 § 3)

Finding:Two-thirds of boards reviewed provide no clear escalation path for a parent who is dissatisfied with the school’s response to a bullying report. In some cases, the policy references an external complaints procedure without naming or summarizing it. In others, the policy is entirely silent on what a parent should do if the principal does not act. This creates a structural dead end: the parent has reported, the school has not responded adequately, and the policy offers no next step.

Dead Ends: Many boards (e.g., Bruce-Grey, Dufferin-Peel, London Catholic) completely omitted the process for what a parent should do if they are dissatisfied with the school’s response.
External Deflection: Others (e.g., Bluewater) referred parents to general “Communication Guidelines” or external complaint policies rather than integrating the safety escalation path directly into the Bullying Prevention Plan.
Lack of Accountability: Without a defined path to a Superintendent or Board office, parents are often left without recourse.

5. Serious Student Incident Classification (10% non-compliance)

Directive: “Bullying, including cyber-bullying, is an instance of a serious student incident.” (PPM 144 § 7)

Finding: This was the strongest area of compliance, with 90% of boards explicitly classifying bullying as a Serious Student Incident. The three boards that failed this requirement described bullying in terms that did not establish the formal linkage to the incident classification system required under PPM 144.

6. Parent Notification after A Bullying Incident (52% non-compliance)

Directive: Following a serious incident, the principal must notify parents of the involved students […] and must invite the parents to discuss supports for their child.” (PPM 144 § 7)

Finding: Just over half of boards failed this requirement. The most common failure mode is a policy that mandates notification of the targeted student’s parents but is silent on notification of the parents of the student who engaged in the bullying. PPM 144 requires notification of parents of all involved students, along with an explicit invitation to discuss supports for their child. Several boards mandate notification but treat the invitation to discuss supports as discretionary (“may”, “are encouraged to”) rather than mandatory. This dilutes the board’s obligation to involve parents immediately following a serious student incident.

7. JK–3 Suspension Conditions (79% non-compliance)

Directive: “Principals must suspend students in junior kindergarten to grade 3 for incidents of bullying if: their continuing presence in the school creates an unacceptable risk to the safety of another person; the bullying is motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or any other similar factor (for example, socio-economic status, appearance). The principal may only suspend a student in junior kindergarten to grade 3 under section 310 of the Education Act for engaging in bullying if they have conducted an investigation respecting the allegations.” (PPM 144 § 8)

Finding: Tied as the highest failure rate. The Education Act (s. 310) establishes specific conditions under which students in Junior Kindergarten through Grade 3 may be suspended for bullying, including mandatory suspension where the bullying is motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate, and a requirement that suspension occur only after an investigation.

Explicit Contradiction: Some boards explicitly stated that JK–3 students cannot be suspended, relying on outdated 2020 regulatory language and ignoring the mandatory exceptions for safety and bias/hate found in s. 310 of the Education Act.
Omission of Safety Exceptions: Many boards referenced general progressive discipline or Regulation 440/20 but omitted the specific legal requirement to suspend when there is an “unacceptable risk to safety,” effectively removing the legislative tool designed to protect young students in severe cases.
By omitting the mandatory conditions (safety risk or bias/hate) that require suspension, these boards leave the decision entirely to subjective discretion rather than regulatory mandate, potentially endangering other students.

Best and Worst Performers

From the 29 English-language boards reviewed, no board achieved full compliance. A handful stand out at both extremes.

Best Performing Boards (6/7)

District School Board of Niagara
Halton District School Board
Lambton Kent District School Board
Limestone District School Board

Wholly Non-Compliant Boards (0/7)

Huron Perth Catholic District School Board
Keewatin-Patricia District School Board
London District Catholic School Board

Q&A — PPM 144 Non-Compliance

Q1: Does this review cover all 72 Ontario school boards?

No. This pilot review covers 29 English-language boards. French-language boards were not included because documents have not yet been collected for those boards. Additional English-language boards will be assessed in future phases. This page will be updated as results become available.

Q2: What is the basis for these requirements?

PPM 144 is a Policy/Program Memorandum issued by the Ontario Minister of Education under the authority of the Education Act. PPMs are binding directives that school boards are required to follow. The specific requirements assessed in this review are derived from the obligations PPM 144 places on boards, including the development and public accessibility of a Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan, the establishment of clear reporting and investigation processes, parental notification obligations, and the JK–3 suspension conditions found in section 310 of the Education Act.

Q3: Were boards notified of these findings?

This review is based on publicly available policy documents downloaded from board websites. Boards have not been individually notified, but this page is publicly accessible and boards are welcome to review the findings and update their policies accordingly.

Q4: What should a board do if it disagrees with a finding?

We welcome corrections. If a board believes a requirement has been incorrectly assessed, we ask that they identify the specific policy language that addresses the requirement in question. If the language exists in the board’s policy and was missed in this review, we will update the finding.

Q5: Why are so many boards non-compliant?

The most likely explanation is that many boards drafted their bullying prevention policies before the current version of PPM 144 (issued November 21, 2021) and have not updated them since. In other cases, the required content exists in operational procedures or administrative guidelines that are not included in or connected to the bullying prevention policy itself. From a parent’s perspective, content that exists in an internal procedure document but is not accessible through the published policy is not compliance.

Q6: What can parents do?

Parents can request a copy of their school board’s Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan and assess whether it answers the basic questions: How do I report bullying? What happens after I report? Who do I contact if I am not satisfied? If the plan does not answer these questions, raise the issue with your school board trustee. Parents may also file a Freedom of Information request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) to obtain any internal procedures or plans that are not publicly available.