The Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, 2023 (Bill 98) amends three major Ontario statutes—the Education Act, the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007 and the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996—to centralize several oversight and accountability functions in the provincial government and regulatory colleges. The package adds new regulation‑making powers and policies for the Minister of Education covering provincial priorities in student achievement, curricula review, training for board officials, communications with parents, and rules governing board business activities and school board controlled entities.
The Act also recalibrates professional regulation and discipline: registrar‑led employer reports become formal complaints, disciplinary bodies may act without a hearing in narrowly specified circumstances following criminal convictions, certificates can be revoked after prolonged suspension, and reinstatement is conditioned on completing sexual‑abuse prevention education. For school boards it creates new duties on multi‑year planning aligned to provincial priorities, reporting and potential Ministerial directions on sale, lease or demolition of school property, joint‑use arrangements, and mandatory codes of conduct with an integrity commissioner process.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act grants the Minister broad policy and regulation authority over student achievement priorities, curricula review, training for board leadership, and the sale/management of school property; requires boards to align multi‑year plans and communications with parents to provincial guidelines; and changes disciplinary and accreditation rules for regulated educators.
Who It Affects
School boards and their trustees, directors of education and supervisory officers; the Ontario College of Teachers and regulated early childhood educators; post‑secondary teacher‑education programs; parents and pupils (including those in special education); and Ministry staff charged with implementation, enforcement and new approvals.
Why It Matters
It shifts substantial operational discretion from local boards to the Minister and provincial regulators, creates prescriptive compliance obligations for boards, and tightens professional discipline and credentialing for educators—altering governance, accountability and administrative burdens across Ontario’s education system.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 98 bundles a range of statutory changes aimed at tightening provincial control over outcomes, increasing parental communication, and strengthening regulatory teeth for educators. For K–12 governance the Act creates a statutory mechanism for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe provincial priorities for student achievement and requires boards to make multi‑year plans consistent with those priorities.
The Minister can issue policies and guidelines on curriculum review frequency, training for board members and senior officials, student mental health, and communications with parents; boards must comply and keep training records for specified officials.
On facilities and finance, the Act requires boards to provide the Minister with reports about their school sites and plans for acquisition, disposal and use; it authorizes regulations that specify when a board may or must sell, lease or otherwise dispose of property and allows the Minister to direct disposals when sites are not needed for current or ten-year accommodation requirements. The Minister can also mandate shared or joint‑use arrangements, require use of particular functional specifications for construction and exempt certain Ministerial policies from standard regulatory processes.The bill expands mandated options and processes for codes of conduct for trustees: boards must adopt codes, appoint or use integrity commissioners (from a Ministerial roster if created), and follow prescribed investigation timetables.
The integrity commissioner process includes explicit powers to require records and witnesses, and a narrow set of sanctions (censure, honorarium reductions up to a prescribed amount, short‑term meeting bans and removal from roles) with a prescribed internal appeal to panels of integrity commissioners.For professional regulation, Bill 98 makes employer reports to regulatory colleges (the College of Early Childhood Educators and the Ontario College of Teachers) functionally equivalent to complaints with the Registrar as the complainant, allows committees to require remedial education, and gives disciplinary bodies the ability to proceed without a hearing where a member has been criminally convicted for the same conduct and appeals are exhausted. It also permits revocation of certificates that remain suspended beyond a three‑year period (or another period set by regulation) and prevents removal of certain suspensions or issuance of certificates until a sexual‑abuse prevention program has been successfully completed.
Finally, teacher education programs must demonstrate graduates' knowledge of the Ontario curriculum, emphasizing math, reading and literacy, as a condition of accreditation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Minister can make regulations prescribing provincial priorities in student achievement and require boards to develop multi‑year plans consistent with those priorities (s. 11.2 and s. 169.2).
Where an employer’s report is referred by a Registrar to a college body, the Registrar is deemed the complainant and the report is treated as a formal complaint for disciplinary purposes (Early Childhood Educators Act s. 49.2.1; Ontario College of Teachers Act s. 43.3.1).
The Discipline Committee may decide without holding a hearing if the member has been criminally convicted of the same conduct and any appeals are exhausted or unavailable (Early Childhood Educators Act s. 33.2(8); Ontario College of Teachers Act s. 30.2(8)).
The Registrar may revoke a teacher’s certificate if a suspension is not removed within three years (or a regulatorily prescribed shorter period), and the Registrar cannot remove certain suspensions or issue a certificate until a mandated sexual‑abuse prevention educational requirement is completed (Ontario College of Teachers Act ss. 24(4), 47.2(4)).
The Minister may direct a board to sell, lease or dispose of school property deemed unneeded for current use or the next 10 years, and regulations may control to whom property is offered and how sale proceeds are used (Education Act ss. 194(5)–(11)).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Complaint handling, remediation and employer reports
The schedule allows the Complaints Committee to require continuing education or remediation and makes the Registrar the formal complainant when an employer report is referred. It also aligns treatment of members with criminal convictions by permitting referral to the Discipline Committee. Practically, colleges will have clearer authority to impose remedial education and to shift the procedural posture of employer reports into the standard complaint stream—changing who controls prosecutorial steps and how remediation is imposed.
Ministerial policy powers over priorities, curricula review and board training
The Act gives the Minister statutory power to prescribe provincial priorities in student achievement and to issue policies and guidelines on how curricula are reviewed and revised, and on training content/timing for trustees, directors and senior staff. Boards must comply and keep training records. This converts Ministerial guidance into enforceable direction and creates compliance documentation obligations for boards and training providers.
Equivalent apprenticeship learning and attendance exceptions
The Act defines 'equivalent apprenticeship learning' for pupils participating in apprenticeship programs and requires boards to develop and offer such learning under Ministerial policies. It also clarifies attendance rules so that pupils employed during school hours as part of equivalent apprenticeship learning are not subject to standard attendance prohibitions. Boards and employers will need to coordinate to translate apprenticeship placements into credited learning pathways.
Information reporting and Ministerial authority on site disposition and design
Boards must report detailed information on the condition and plans for school sites and property on the Minister’s schedule. The Minister can direct disposals where property is not needed for current or ten‑year accommodation plans, require Ministerial approval for demolition, and mandate functional specifications for construction. Regulations will specify circumstances, pricing, transferee obligations and use of proceeds—creating a regulatory framework that can materially change local asset strategies and procurement choices.
Mandatory trustee codes of conduct, integrity commissioner process and sanctions
Every board must adopt a code of conduct; members may notify chairs or directors of alleged breaches, and unresolved matters are to be referred to an integrity commissioner. The Minister can establish a roster of commissioners and regulate qualifications, fees and procedures. Integrity commissioners have express investigative powers, fixed timelines for determinations, and a menu of sanctions (including honorarium reductions and temporary meeting bans) with a regulated internal appeal to a three‑commissioner panel. Boards will need new administrative processes, and costs (fees, investigations, reporting) are likely to rise.
Discipline mechanics, accreditation and certificate revocation
Changes give investigation and discipline committees stronger remedial powers and the ability to proceed without a hearing following relevant criminal convictions. The Registrar may revoke certificates suspended beyond a regulatory period (three years default) and cannot lift certain suspensions or issue certificates unless sexual‑abuse prevention program requirements are completed. Teacher education accreditation criteria must ensure graduates acquire knowledge of the Ontario curriculum—especially math and literacy—linking program accreditation directly to provincial curricular priorities.
Phased commencement and transitional application
Many provisions come into force on Royal Assent, but several sections are deferred to proclamation or specific dates (for example, joint‑use authority was set to Dec 31, 2023 unless earlier proclaimed). Transition clauses preserve existing processes for matters already underway while applying new rules where no final administrative decision has been made. Boards and regulators must track proclaimed dates and transitional rules closely to know which regime applies to ongoing matters.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Provincial Ministry of Education — gains enforceable policy levers (provincial priorities, approval and direction powers over school property and design standards) to align system‑level objectives and the capacity to require board compliance.
- Students seeking trades pathways — boards must develop and offer 'equivalent apprenticeship learning', which can provide accredited, employment‑linked learning opportunities and recognition for in‑work hours.
- Parents of pupils — boards are required to improve communications, publish multi‑year plans, hold twice‑annual meetings about those plans and provide materials on rights and special education, enhancing transparency and opportunity for engagement.
- Victims and child protection outcomes — eligibility for funding and complaint handling now focuses on whether a member’s practice facilitated access to a child (not only direct supervision), and reinstatement of suspended certificates is conditioned on completion of sexual‑abuse prevention education, strengthening protective measures.
- Regulatory colleges and disciplinary processes — clearer statutory authority to require remediation, treat employer reports as formal complaints and align professional discipline with criminal findings simplifies case management and victim support pathways.
Who Bears the Cost
- School boards — face new reporting obligations on property condition and plans, must align multi‑year plans with provincial policies, potentially implement Ministerial directives to dispose of property, adopt codes of conduct and fund integrity commissioner processes and training recordkeeping.
- Teachers and early childhood educators — face stricter disciplinary mechanics, potential certificate revocation after prolonged suspensions, mandatory completion of sexual‑abuse prevention programs before reinstatement, and tighter accreditation conditions for teacher‑education programs.
- Boards’ fiscal flexibility — regulations may restrict how revenue is used, prescribe minimum/maximum allocations and require proceeds of disposals be applied to board purposes, constraining local budget planning.
- Integrity commissioners and panels — increased demand for investigations and regulated timelines means resource and fee implications (fees may be prescribed and boards may be required to pay), and boards will shoulder administrative costs for publication and recordkeeping.
- Post‑secondary education providers offering teacher education — will need to align programs to Ontario curriculum knowledge standards (notably math and literacy) to maintain accreditation, potentially changing curricula and practicum requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between centralization for standardized student outcomes and protective oversight versus preserving local autonomy, due process and operational capacity: the Act gives the province and regulators stronger tools to enforce priorities and protect children, but doing so reduces boards’ discretion, increases administrative burdens, and raises due‑process tradeoffs in professional discipline.
The Act stacks new central powers and local obligations in ways that will require careful administrative design. The Minister’s expanded ability to prescribe priorities, approve materials, charge fees for textbook evaluation and direct property dispositions creates potent levers to standardize practice—but most of these levers rely on forthcoming regulations and guidelines.
That creates timing and interpretation risk: boards and colleges will be monitoring regulatory instruments closely because many operational details (criteria for 'equivalent apprenticeship learning', circumstances for mandatory disposals, functional specifications, and the roster/process for integrity commissioners) are delegated to regulation rather than set in the Act.
The package also raises procedural and fairness questions. Allowing disciplinary committees to make decisions without hearings where there is a corresponding criminal conviction speeds sanctioning, but narrows procedural protections; regulators will need clear rules about the scope of 'same conduct', the treatment of overlapping civil/criminal evidence, and how to handle convictions that are under appeal in other jurisdictions.
Conditioning reinstatement on completion of sexual‑abuse prevention training advances victim protection but invites disputes over program content, access, timing and whether completion should be the sole barrier to reinstatement. Finally, the Act imposes new compliance and reporting costs on local boards without explicit funding in the text; how the Ministry supports boards operationally and financially to meet new obligations will determine whether the changes improve outcomes or generate implementation shortfalls.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.