Provincial Report Card
The table below offers a province-by-province assessment of how each jurisdiction addresses collective punishment through legislation, Ministry guidance, and school board policy. We grade each province based on clarity, protection, and consistency—with only one province earning top marks.
| Province | Ban? | Education Act | Human Rights Risk | Ministry Guidance | Board Variation | Grade | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alberta | ❌ | Education Act (silent) | High | Limited or inconsistent references to positive behaviour support. | High | D | No ban; wide variation across boards; high human rights risk. |
| British Columbia | ❌ | School Act (silent); Board policies apply | High | References inclusive education; lacks clarity on group-based discipline. | High | D+ | No explicit policy; wide variation across districts; collective punishment still reported. |
| Manitoba | ❌ | Public Schools Act s.47.1 | High | Safe and Caring Schools policy exists but lacks clarity on group punishment. | Moderate | C– | Inclusive language in policy, but no explicit prohibition of collective punishment. |
| New Brunswick | ❌ | Education Act (silent) | High | Policy 703 references safe and inclusive environments; vague on discipline. | Moderate | C– | Inclusive language exists but group punishments not addressed. |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | ❌ | Schools Act, 1997 | Moderate | Safe and Caring Schools Policy exists, unclear on collective punishment. | Moderate | C | Framework in place, but enforcement and clarity are weak. |
| Northwest Territories | ❌ | Education Act (NWT) | High | References safe learning environments, lacks specific discipline policies. | Moderate | C– | Policy frameworks general; variation in practice. |
| Nova Scotia | ✅ | Public Schools Act s.56 | Low | Clear prohibition of collective punishment with restorative emphasis. | Low | A | Only province with explicit ban; strong Ministry direction and policy alignment. |
| Nunavut | ❌ | Education Act (2008) | Moderate | Culturally responsive teaching focus; limited clarity on discipline norms. | Moderate | C– | Young and evolving system; unclear boundaries on group-based discipline. |
| Ontario | ❌ | Education Act R.S.O. 1990 | Moderate | Promotes safe and accepting schools; lacks clarity on collective punishment. | High | C | Well-developed behavioural policy framework; still lacks explicit prohibition. |
| Prince Edward Island | ❌ | Education Act (silent) | High | References student well-being, no specific discipline guidance. | Moderate | C– | Lack of clarity and consistency; relies heavily on school leadership. |
| Quebec | ❌ | Education Act (Art. 75+) | Moderate | Discipline is locally managed; no province-wide guidance on collective punishment. | High | C | School boards set policy; uneven guidance and oversight. |
| Saskatchewan | ❌ | Education Act, 1995 (silent) | High | Broad guidelines on discipline; no mention of group punishment. | Moderate | D | No direct ban; guidance vague; human rights concerns remain. |
| Yukon | ❌ | Education Act (territorial) | Moderate | References trauma-informed practice, but lacks explicit bans. | Low | C | Small jurisdiction with some inclusion focus, but vague on group discipline. |
Provincial News
While policy documents tell one story, lived experience often tells another. This map collects news, reports, and developments from across the country—highlighting where collective punishment is still in use, where families are speaking out, and where change may be on the horizon.
Click on a province to explore its current status, or follow links to local advocacy, media coverage, and school board policies. This section is updated as new information emerges.
