The lawn of a French school in Toronto leads to a row with parents - July 29, 2026
- Journalist Jérémie Bélanger, Radio-Canada
On Monday July 27th, I gave an interview to CBC (RADIO- CANADA), they published the news article below on July 29, 2026.
In less than two weeks, the MonAvenir Catholic School Board (CSC) switched from a synthetic soccer field project to a natural grass field project for the redevelopment of the Sacré-Cœur Catholic Elementary School playground in Toronto. This reversal, announced 11 days after the initial plan was presented, is now drawing criticism from parents.
On June 19th, theCSCMonAvenir announced a complete redevelopment of the courtyard, including a modern synthetic turf soccer field.
A few days later, under pressure from environmentally concerned parents, MonAvenir held an information session about the project. According to Yelena Nichilo, chair of the Sacred Heart School Council in Toronto, the superintendent explained that theCSCdoes not have the $50,000 needed for the annual maintenance of a natural grass field.
Two days later, a survey with a single multiple-choice question is sent to parents. Open for only two days, it provides no information to compare the costs, durability, or maintenance requirements of the different options. Parents are simply asked to indicate whether they prefer a synthetic, natural, or hybrid pitch.
“They were choosing the flavor of their chips [...] without understanding the consequences.”
- A quote fromYelena Nichilo, President of the Council of Sacred Heart Catholic Elementary School
Lucas McCann , a parent of a student at the school, also points out that the Council asked parents to choose between three options, but that the final decision, a natural site with an irrigation and drainage system, is, in his opinion, a fourth option that was never presented during the public consultations.
Eleven days after the initial announcement, MonAvenir reversed course and announced the abandonment of synthetic turf in favor of natural grass.CSCHe claims the community was deeply divided and maintains that no funding was lost. The funds earmarked for the project were reportedly reallocated to the irrigation system, surface drainage, and four portable goals.
A process deemed lacking in transparency
Whether they favour a natural grass pitch or a synthetic pitch, several parents we spoke to agree on one point: the process lacks transparency.
Ms. Nichilo, for her part, denounces a lack of responsible management of public funds as well as the absence of genuine consultation. She publicly questions: if the Council itself claimed not to have the $50,000 needed to maintain a natural area, how can this decision now be considered a responsible use of public funds?
Vincent Beau, a parent of a student who supports natural grass, also believes that the Council did not really consult families before making its decision.
For her part, Nikki Maluzzo, also a parent of a student, mainly criticizes the process.
“They never talked about the costs of the project.”
- A quote from Nikki Maluzzo, parent of a student at Sacred Heart Catholic Elementary School
However, she qualifies her criticisms by stating that, in her opinion, theCSChas generally demonstrated transparency in its decision-making, despite the shortcomings surrounding public consultation.
Concerns about funding
In the absence of a response fromCSCMonAvenir, Mr. McCann, fears that the provincial funds initially earmarked for the synthetic turf field have been lost, reallocated to another spending category, or transferred to another school. He also doubts that funds are being set aside to ensure the long-term maintenance of the natural grass field.
Yelena Nichilo shares this concern. She wonders if contracts had already been signed for the synthetic pitch before the change of course and if the Council had to pay penalties to cancel them.
The debate on the sustainability of the land
Beyond financial issues, many question the ability of a natural terrain to withstand the daily use of students.
Shawn Simoes , a resident of the neighborhood, believes it will be difficult for the school to maintain a natural field in good condition. " I see the number of children there. It won't last. It will go back to the way it was ," he believes.
Mr. McCann shares this observation. According to him, a synthetic turf field would have better met the students' needs. Natural grass is very muddy. During the winter, it's completely frozen, so there are only perhaps two or three months of the year when it's usable , he argues.
These concerns resonate with Eric Lyons , associate professor of plant agriculture and interim associate dean of research at the Ontario College of Agriculture at the University of Guelph. He believes that a school should ideally have three to four hectares to allow for rotation of natural land. However, with urban densification, most schoolyards are much smaller.
He acknowledges that, when space is limited and the traffic turns natural grass into a compacted mud pit , synthetic turf becomes an option to consider so that young people can continue to play.
Health and environmental concerns
Parents who favor natural grass place greater emphasis on health and environmental issues.
Vincent Beau is particularly concerned about the heat retention of synthetic pitches. " It's important that children have access to nature, and it's also important in the context of climate change ," he says.
Ms. Maluzzo, for her part, is concerned about the potential presence of chemical substances, particularly thePFAS, as well as microplastics.
Mr. Lyons, however, urges caution when assessing these risks. Some people criticize synthetic products for reasons that are not necessarily based on scientific evidence. […] We must be careful about the information we use to make our decisions, he concludes.
