The Ontario Divisional Court ruled against parental rights activist Ann Gillies after she sought a judicial review over being blocked from giving a speech objecting to the pride flag at a school board meeting..“In paying ‘respectful attention’ to the board’s reasons, there is no difficulty in understanding the reasoning process that led to the decision that was made,” said a panel of Ontario Divisional Court judges in a ruling..“It is clear that to permit the applicant’s proposed presentation to be publicly aired at a board meeting would run contrary to the laws, bylaws, and policies regarding inclusiveness that bind it, and that permission was being denied for that reason.” .The ruling said the ordeal started when Gillies wrote to the Bluewater District School Board (BDSB) in 2019, expressing her wish to speak at the upcoming meeting. She provided a copy of the presentation she intended to make a few weeks later..Gillies’ presentation would have seen her speak about taking back the rainbow..“We stand in solidarity with biology, human design, physical reality, health, and moralism,” she said..“As parents and concerned citizens, we politely ask that you do not support the harmful transgender ideology by allowing the LGBT flag flown at our schools in June.”.BDSB director assistant and manager of corporate services Bev Sims informed her the request was denied, but the board would provide it to the trustees via email. She followed up to find out why the presentation was blocked..Sims responded by saying it was because Gillies’ presentation violated the human rights policy. The BDSB’s human rights policy states it's committed “to meeting its obligation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code by providing safe schools and workplaces that not only respect the rights but also recognize the worth of every individual.”.To understand the rationale for the BDSB’s decision, the panel said it is necessary to imagine a transgender student in attendance in the audience at the meeting where she was making the presentation and hearing they do not exist, but are part of gender ideology. It asked how could this meeting contribute to a positive environment which is inclusive and accepting of all students..The ruling said suppose a delegate proposed to make a presentation advocating non-white students be taught in classrooms segregated from those with white ones. It added how many words would be needed to make it clear such a presentation is repugnant and racist..The panel called the BDSB’s reasons “sufficient and entirely reasonable.” .The BDSB conceded Gillies’ freedom of expression as guaranteed under Section 2b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was infringed by not allowing her to speak. Given this, it said a balancing framework should be considered..She argued the board failed to engage in this balancing exercise in its reasoning, making it impossible for an appeal court to review the decision to determine if it was reasonable. She said the balancing exercise must be a robust one and is not open to the Divisional Court to conduct it when a decision maker has failed to do so..The ruling said the decision did not demand such an exercise. It was a simple, binary choice to permit the presentation to be made or not..It declined to declare Gillies a public interest litigant. She chose to bring the application and would have a reasonable expectation of an adverse costs order if she was unsuccessful..“Costs are awarded to the respondent, fixed at $5,000 all inclusive,” said the panel..Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) litigation director Marty Moore said it was disappointed in the ruling in this case..“We believe that freedom of expression is a crucial part of democratic governance, including before elected public school boards,” said Moore..“We look forward to advancing this central principle before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on the (Carolyn) Burjoski and (Mike) Ramsay matters being heard the week of June 5, 2023.” .The JCCF took legal action against the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) on behalf of Burjoski in June..READ MORE: Justice Centre files lawsuit against Ontario school board for expelling teacher.“Ms. Burjoski is a former teacher with sincere concerns about the appropriateness of the sexual content being shared with elementary school-aged children in Waterloo Region schools,” said JCCF lawyer Jorge Pineda..She was expelled from a WRDSB meeting after she objected to board decisions to ban library books deemed harmful and include those about sexuality for elementary school students.
The Ontario Divisional Court ruled against parental rights activist Ann Gillies after she sought a judicial review over being blocked from giving a speech objecting to the pride flag at a school board meeting..“In paying ‘respectful attention’ to the board’s reasons, there is no difficulty in understanding the reasoning process that led to the decision that was made,” said a panel of Ontario Divisional Court judges in a ruling..“It is clear that to permit the applicant’s proposed presentation to be publicly aired at a board meeting would run contrary to the laws, bylaws, and policies regarding inclusiveness that bind it, and that permission was being denied for that reason.” .The ruling said the ordeal started when Gillies wrote to the Bluewater District School Board (BDSB) in 2019, expressing her wish to speak at the upcoming meeting. She provided a copy of the presentation she intended to make a few weeks later..Gillies’ presentation would have seen her speak about taking back the rainbow..“We stand in solidarity with biology, human design, physical reality, health, and moralism,” she said..“As parents and concerned citizens, we politely ask that you do not support the harmful transgender ideology by allowing the LGBT flag flown at our schools in June.”.BDSB director assistant and manager of corporate services Bev Sims informed her the request was denied, but the board would provide it to the trustees via email. She followed up to find out why the presentation was blocked..Sims responded by saying it was because Gillies’ presentation violated the human rights policy. The BDSB’s human rights policy states it's committed “to meeting its obligation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code by providing safe schools and workplaces that not only respect the rights but also recognize the worth of every individual.”.To understand the rationale for the BDSB’s decision, the panel said it is necessary to imagine a transgender student in attendance in the audience at the meeting where she was making the presentation and hearing they do not exist, but are part of gender ideology. It asked how could this meeting contribute to a positive environment which is inclusive and accepting of all students..The ruling said suppose a delegate proposed to make a presentation advocating non-white students be taught in classrooms segregated from those with white ones. It added how many words would be needed to make it clear such a presentation is repugnant and racist..The panel called the BDSB’s reasons “sufficient and entirely reasonable.” .The BDSB conceded Gillies’ freedom of expression as guaranteed under Section 2b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was infringed by not allowing her to speak. Given this, it said a balancing framework should be considered..She argued the board failed to engage in this balancing exercise in its reasoning, making it impossible for an appeal court to review the decision to determine if it was reasonable. She said the balancing exercise must be a robust one and is not open to the Divisional Court to conduct it when a decision maker has failed to do so..The ruling said the decision did not demand such an exercise. It was a simple, binary choice to permit the presentation to be made or not..It declined to declare Gillies a public interest litigant. She chose to bring the application and would have a reasonable expectation of an adverse costs order if she was unsuccessful..“Costs are awarded to the respondent, fixed at $5,000 all inclusive,” said the panel..Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) litigation director Marty Moore said it was disappointed in the ruling in this case..“We believe that freedom of expression is a crucial part of democratic governance, including before elected public school boards,” said Moore..“We look forward to advancing this central principle before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on the (Carolyn) Burjoski and (Mike) Ramsay matters being heard the week of June 5, 2023.” .The JCCF took legal action against the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) on behalf of Burjoski in June..READ MORE: Justice Centre files lawsuit against Ontario school board for expelling teacher.“Ms. Burjoski is a former teacher with sincere concerns about the appropriateness of the sexual content being shared with elementary school-aged children in Waterloo Region schools,” said JCCF lawyer Jorge Pineda..She was expelled from a WRDSB meeting after she objected to board decisions to ban library books deemed harmful and include those about sexuality for elementary school students.
