Listen to this article
Estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
The Halifax Regional Centre for Education (HRCE) denies all responsibility in the case of a vice-principal who was stabbed by a student at a Bedford, N.S., high school more than three years ago.
In a notice of defence filed to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on March 16, the HRCE and the school’s full-time security guard deny claims by Wayne Rodgers of Middle Sackville, N.S., that their negligence contributed to the assault.
HRCE and the security guard — referred to in the document as “the HRCE defendants” — say it was Rodgers’s own negligence that led to him being stabbed.
Rodgers filed a lawsuit in March 2025 against the HRCE defendants and the Nova Scotia government for failing to protect him on the job, stating the incident was preventable and the security guard was not properly trained.
The province has previously denied all allegations.
Rodgers was one of two victims in the attack that took place in the office at Charles P. Allen High School on March 20, 2023. He was stabbed twice by a student who pleaded guilty in 2024 to two counts of aggravated assault.
Another staff member was also stabbed.
The assailant — who was 15 at the time — was sentenced to two years of probation. His name is protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
In the notice of defence, the HRCE defendants argue that the security guard was properly trained and had many years of experience working in security before the assault. It says he also had experience working with high-risk children and adults.
They say his “qualifications met and exceeded the requirements of his job description at the time of the assault.”
Rodgers alleged that the security guard locked him in his office with the student after the security guard confiscated an illegal butterfly knife from the teen’s backpack.
He claimed the guard failed to properly search the boy for other weapons.
During the criminal case, the court heard that the student had four knives in his possession when he was called to the school’s office for putting up unauthorized posters in the building.
The defendants say the security guard did not lock the door from the outside of the vice-principal’s office and if the door was locked, “it was inadvertently left locked by the plaintiff, but the door could still be opened from the inside.”
Before the stabbing, they say the security guard was directed by Rodgers to go call the non-emergency police line to report the butterfly knife. They claim the vice-principal instructed him to close the door on his way out so he could talk to the student.
They say Rodgers “let his guard down” that day and failed to follow standard practice to always place himself between a student and his office door.
Instead, they say Rodgers sat at his desk, while the student sat between him and the door.
“The plaintiff wrongly assumed that [the student] was misguided but harmless.”
The statement goes on to say that following the attack, the security guard pursued the student until he was out of the school. It says he then called 911 and “took immediate steps to assist staff in securing the school until the police responded.”
The defendants say in the days after the attack, Rodgers praised the security guard and told the HRCE to ensure they appreciated the “invaluable role” the guard played in responding to the incident.
Defendants say Rodgers has no right to sue
Rodgers’s lawsuit outlines in detail the physical and psychological injuries he’s endured because of the attack.
He’s seeking unspecified damages for the loss of ability to work and the costs he’s incurred as a result of his injuries.
But the defendants say he’s already received his salary and medical benefits for injury on duty under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Public School Administrators Association of Nova Scotia and the provincial Department of Education.
“The plaintiff is trying to recover compensation twice from the same source, his employer, for the same injury,” the notice of defence reads.
It also says the MOU extinguishes Rodgers’s right to sue his employer.
The HRCE defendants argue the case should be dismissed, with costs awarded to them.
MORE TOP STORIES
