The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled Grade 12 St. Joseph’s Catholic High School student Josh Alexander can remove himself from parental control. .“Accordingly, Josh has not been permitted to advance an appeal of the suspension and exclusion decisions independently from his parents,” said Ontario Superior Court Justice Jaye Hooper in a ruling. .“For the reasons that follow, I find that Josh has withdrawn from parental control as of December 22, 2022 and has standing to advance his appeals to the School Board.” .Alexander — who served a long suspension for opposing gender ideology — was barred from school in January..READ MORE: Catholic student against transgenders using girls washrooms banned from school again.He led a student walkout and protest in November over biological males entering female washrooms..Liberty Coalition Canada (LCC) said he was suspended “because he has expressed his belief, during class debates and on social media, there are only two genders, students cannot switch between genders, and male students should not be permitted into the girls’ bathroom.”.Section 309 (1) of the Education Act grants a parent or guardian the right to appeal a suspension or exclusion of their child from school unless he or she is 18 years old or is 16 or 17 years old and has withdrawn from parental control. There is no definition of withdrawal from parental control under the Education Act. .Beyond the impact to a child’s educational decisions, finding a child has withdrawn from parental control changes the legal relationship with his or her parents. In effect, the child is declared to be an independent adult. .Alexander retained counsel about an appeal to his suspension in December. Counsel served the Renfrew County Catholic District School Board (RCCDSB) with a notice of intention to appeal in January, listing him as the sole applicant. .“For the purposes of this appeal, Mr. Alexander has withdrawn from parental control, is a mature minor and is competent to instruct counsel in the conduct of the appeal,” said LCC chief counsel James Kitchen. .A child cannot withdraw from parental control for a limited purpose. The RCCDSB advised him of this. .He was scheduled to return to school in January on certain conditions, but declined to abide by them. This prompted the principal to issue an exclusion order against him. .Following this ordeal, he swore an affidavit for withdrawal in January. He said he can do so because he has hired a lawyer to appeal his suspension, makes almost all decisions about his education for himself without any control from his parents, decides matters for himself and makes his own medical and lifestyle choices. .His father Matt swore an affidavit one day later to support Josh’s position. Matt supported the move by saying he and his wife Nicole have raised him to be independent, has his own stream of income of which he has complete control over, travels without direct oversight of his parents and is expected to take responsibility for his actions. .There was no evidence of financial independence or a break in the parent-child relationship. Josh lives rent-free at home with Matt and Nicole, and his independence evolved out of love and encouragement from them. .Upon receiving their affidavits, the RCCDSB took the position they were insufficient. As a result, it maintained its refusal to grant him standing in his appeals, leading to this application being commenced. .Hooper admitted she understands its skepticism. She said the usual hallmarks the court looks to in resolving disputes within the family as to whether a child has withdrawn from parental control are missing. .However, she said there is “no requirement for his parents to stop financially supporting him or to stop helping him make significant decisions.” Parents support their independent adult children all the time. .Major decisions are often discussed, with parental input sought. A declaration the child has withdrawn from parental control ends the legal obligation of financial support, but it can be given. .The RCCDSB did not argue such a declaration is against his best interests. He sought this declaration for a valid reason. .He and his parents understood the effects of this declaration and accepted them. She said she does not “believe a court has the right to overrule the manner in which a family decides to structure itself, just because it is outside the norm.” .If the parties cannot agree to costs, Hooper said Josh will have until Sept. 15 to file submissions. The RCCDSB will have until Sept. 22 to respond to them. .“He has standing to bring the appeals of his suspensions and exclusion,” she said. .Alexander initiated a human rights complaint against the RCCDSB in March, alleging discrimination in services based on his Roman Catholic creed. .READ MORE: Ontario student files lawsuit against Catholic school board for religious discrimination.“The commission’s own policy is clear the school board is required to accommodate the applicant in a way that integrates rather than segregates,” said Kitchen. .Kitchen said he holds many sincere beliefs informed by the Bible about gender, sexuality and modesty. He said he believes he is called by God to proclaim the truth, which includes telling those around him about his design for gender and opposing the RCCDSB’s policy to allow biological males into women’s washrooms.
