School bus operators were forced to take school boards and their transportation consortia to court in 2012 to challenge a flawed new process for awarding school bus routes. Since then, school bus operators have won in court 5 times but have now learned that the government is using money meant for the classroom to prolong the litigation. A Task Force in 2011 recommended an Independent Review - the government ignored the findings.
When school boards have wanted to withdraw unfair RFPs and negotiate fair contracts with operators, the Liberal government has prevented them from doing so and agreed to pay private law firms so that their transportation consortia would resist the cancellation. In London, nearly $400,000 of EPO funding was used on the unsuccessful 2013 court challenge of SWOSTS, for the Thames Valley and London Catholic School Boards.
“The Liberal government has completely mismanaged this file,” according to Karen Cameron, Executive Director of the Independent School Bus Operators Association.
Corina Morrison, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the London Anti-Bullying Coalition believes parents will be outraged that funding for educational programs was instead used to pay for unnecessary litigation. Karen Sebben (Exec Director of York Region Anti Bullying Coalition) said "How can this government stand with us against bullying when it is clear they don't recognize the behavior in themselves?"
In 2009, then Minister of Education Wynne promised a moratorium when pilot projects proved the RFP process was not fair to small rural operators. She failed to keep her promise. A new You Tube video documents the school bus industry’s saga. The video, called “The Biggest Bully on the Bus”, tells the story of family businesses that were "thrown under the bus", and the lengths the industry is going to fight for safe, affordable bussing.
In 2013, ISBOA members served 3400 of the 18,000 daily school bus routes in Ontario. Many members are second and third generation businesses who have served their communities for years, providing safe, quality services at a fair price.
From the Moving Parties Factum:
Click here to view complete Factum
148. Plaintiffs' counsel followed up on this issue with counsel for the Ministry, who responded: The Deputy Minister has delegation of authority to approve the funding in question. All documentation in support of the request and his approval have been provided. The expenditures were paid to STEO and STS through the Education Programs-Other transfer payment line of the Ministry of Education. The funding was available within the Ministry's allocation for this budget line.
149. The Ministry's 2014:B5 Memo, dated March 27, 2014, sets out the categories of Education Program - Other ("EPO") spending and the money allocated to each. It includes programs such as Aboriginal education, autism supports and training, school mental health strategies, and special mathematics instruction. The Appendix to the 2014:B5 Memo sets out the amount of EPO funding to be received by each school board, broken down by category.
150. The categories set out in the memo do not include anything resembling "litigation funding", nor is there any mention of this funding in the specific allocations to STEO's member school boards set out in the appendix. None of the other categories set out in the memo and its appendix could possibly encompass the litigation funding provided by the Ministry. The litigation funding is also not disclosed in the 2013 versions of the same memo and appendix.
151. On May 15, 2014, counsel for the Plaintiffs sent a further letter to counsel for the Ministry setting out the purpose of EPO funding, namely bona fide educational programs, and noting the failure of the Ministry to disclose the litigation funding in any of the memos relating to EPO funding. The letter advised that given the Ministry's inability to point to any valid statutory basis for the litigation funding, the Plaintiffs intended to amend their Notice of Motion to seek an order that the funding was ultra vires and that it be returned. The Ministry did not respond to this letter.
152. The Ministry has purported to fund litigation against operators from a budget line item - Educational
Programs - that is manifestly not intended for that purpose. Moreover, the Ministry has decided not to disclose this funding allocation as it does with all other EPO funding.
EPO Funding Categories (2014:B5)
Click to view complete B5 Memo in PDF format | View page 4 of the PDF document
