By Josh Hall | @Vancan19

RESPONSIBILITIES OF A TRUSTEE ADDRESSED

Day 2 of LaGrange v. Red Deer Catholic: “This is not about cancel culture,” says division counsel

May 2, 2024 | 5:18 PM

Arguments continued Thursday on day two of a three-day double Judicial Review in the case of former Red Deer Catholic school trustee Monique LaGrange.

DAY 1 AND MORE BACKGROUND: Judicial Review of ousted ex-Red Deer school trustee begins in Court of King’s Bench

The day featured the remainder of initial arguments from LaGrange’s counsel James Kitchen, and nearly the entirety of the same from the school division’s legal representation, Teresa Haykowsky.

Kitchen concluded by referring once again to letters from the public received in support of LaGrange through the course of the controversy playing out, mostly last fall.

“Is it reasonable to say that this meme is comparing Pride to the Nazis? No, it’s not fair or reasonable,” he said. “Nobody can provide reasoning for why they feel it’s indicative of that.”

$4.2 million deficit

Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools facing dire financial woes

8h ago

Beginning May 27, 2024

Vista Trail residential roadway closure in Blackfalds

11h ago

securing medals amid personal growth

RDCRS students make their marks at Skills Provincials Alberta

12h ago

He later said it seems like the board of trustees was making their process up as it went along.

Kitchen also asserted that when the board required LaGrange make an apology in the first set of sanctions, they already knew she could not do so because she’d already stated she was unapologetic — thus, any apology would be insincere, he said.

Kitchen also referred to, as he did on day one, a, “secret meeting,” which he stated occurred Sept. 5, just days after the original incident.

Counsel Haykowsky contested the assertion that the Sept. 5 meeting was “secret,” as Kitchen had put it, because then-trustee LaGrange was in fact present and not excluded from said meeting.

This information was not included in documents originally submitted to the courts, so through the rules of the Judicial Review process and both parties agreeing, Justice Cheryl Arcand-Kootenay permitted it to be included.

The meeting on Sept. 5 did in fact include LaGrange, and LaGrange is recorded in official meeting minutes as having voted in opposition to a motion that the board write the Education Minister to dismiss her. That motion was approved 4-3, though the division would later learn the Education Minister lacks that power.

Counsel Kitchen acknowledged that if he had made a false statement, inferring that LaGrange was not present at the Sept. 5 meeting, it was only because he had not been made aware of that fact.

Counsel Haykowsky opened her arguments by pointing to the school division’s stated values and responsibilities of a trustee, those being that a trustee will ensure students and staff can function in an environment which is welcoming, caring, respectful and safe, and one where diversity is respected and there is a sense of belonging being nurtured.

“The role of the trustee is to contribute to the role of the board … to achieve its mission values, beliefs and principles,” she said.

“The oath of office taken by each trustee binds that person to work diligently and faithfully in the cause of public education.”

Haykowsky noted clauses in board policy which state trustees should be cognizant of how their social media use is representative of the board, and that trustees will contribute to a positive and respectful learning and work culture.

“Our friend [Kitchen] has suggested that the board was acting emotionally,” said Haykowsky. “So far, there’s been nothing to show ill-intent, [and] no evidence of an attempt to humiliate Mrs. LaGrange.”

Haykowsky stated that the board has said it does not dispute that the trustee holds sincere religious views, but that, “your freedom to express your views must be balanced against the board’s duty to operate in the context of or in a manner that is consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the board’s mandate.”

“This is not about cancel culture,” she added near the end of Thursday’s session.

“This is about following board procedure in the context of the role of a trustee who is at the highest of the hierarchy in a school division that is required to provide a safe and caring environment for children.”

On the notion presented by Kitchen that the meme did not compare Pride to Nazism, Haykowsky pointed to a Sept. 6 letter from the Toronto-based Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a Jewish human rights organization, which stated that it was “incredibly disturbed” by the meme LaGrange shared. The centre also stated that the post was “even more abhorrent” based on the fact that many thousands of victims of the Nazis were those who would’ve identified today as 2SLGBTQIA+.

Kitchen clarified Thursday that LaGrange is indeed seeking that she be reinstated to the board of trustees, and that she receive trustee backpay, should the sanctions against her be quashed.

The double judicial review was slated to end Friday, but will likely be extended.

rdnewsNOW will provide updates on this case as they become available.

—

For local news delivered daily to your email inbox, subscribe for free to the rdnewsNOW newsletter by visiting rdnewsNOW.com. You can also download the rdnewsNOW mobile app on Google Play and the Apple App Store for all the latest updates on this and other stories.