Sloat v GEDSB: Update

 A few things have happened since my previous post, so here's a quick update. 

1) The court's decision came down. As I predicted, it was a pretty convincing win for my mom's case - the court disagreed on a few minor points, but on all the important stuff, she won. I've included some of the best quotes below, in case you don't care to read the whole thing. 

2) We've launched a GoFundMe campaign to help with her legal costs, and as of time of writing it's already raised over $2000 in less than a day. Any help that you might care to offer would be greatly appreciated. 

3) There's been a ton of coverage in local media, all of it pretty positive. 

• Grand Erie school board trustee 'punished for being a whistleblower', lawyer argues at judicial hearing, Brantford Expositor, Nov 1st
• Court quashes four sanctions against Grand Erie School Board trustee Sloat, Brantford Expositor, Nov 15th
• Ousted Brantford trustee wins court case against Grand Erie District School Board, Hamilton Spectator, Nov 16th
• Letter to the Editor, "Time for trustees to get back on track", Brantford Expositor, Nov 25th
• GEDSB trustee wins case: Reinstated and awarded $10K in damages, Haldimand Press, Nov 28th
• Former trustee files complaint against Grand Erie District School Board, Hamilton Spectator, Nov 30th 

4) Sadly, despite all of the above, the Board shows no signs of quitting their ugly little campaign. They've promised more punishments in future, and even though my mom was back at the table for the last meeting, the Chair refused to actually acknowledge her or let her speak. So there's still more work to be done. 

Still, despite that last point, it's been a good few weeks. Let's hope for more of the same in future. 

Thank you to everyone for your support so far. 

===

As promised, some quotes from the court case. In all the quotes below "the applicant" means my mom. 

Section: The Applicant Did Not Receive Procedural Fairness

• The current procedure "effectively turns the Board into a rubber stamp", and "the Decisions are procedurally unfair and must be quashed"

Section: Other Procedural Fairness Arguments raised by the Applicant

• There is a "general impression that the applicant was being unfairly dealt with and unfairly targeted". 

Section: The Board’s Decisions Are Not Reasonable

• "These matters started with a benign complaint to the Ombudsman over whether a Board meeting to discuss new governance bylaws and policies was required to be open to the public and cascaded into a morass of further complaints and sanctions against the applicant, all for relatively minor infractions if, indeed, they were infractions."

Section: Lack of Intelligibility

• "The finding that [making] a complaint to the Ombudsman about a violation of the Education Act...breached five sections of the Code lacks justification and intelligibility and is therefore unreasonable. In essence this complaint and resulting Decision amount to a reprisal against the applicant for being a whistleblower."
• "this has more of the hallmarks of a vexatious complaint against the applicant. The finding in these circumstances...is unintelligible and unreasonable."
• "This finding is not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints"

Section: The Second, Third and Fourth Decisions

• "The complaints were all minor in nature."
• "the Board’s real concern was not about the confidentiality of the documents that were disclosed but about punishing the applicant"

Section: Decision unreasonable because the Board failed to consider the applicant’s s.2(b) Charter rights under the Code

• "The applicant in her [appeal] specifically asked the Board to consider her [Charter] rights...The Board declined to do so.  There is no balancing decision of the Board to defer to. As a result, the Decision is unreasonable."

Section: Penalty Does not fit the Conduct

• "There is no rational connection between the applicant’s conduct and the sanctions imposed. The sanctions are excessive and punitive."
• "The sanctions in other arguably more egregious school trustee cases were not more than a single general board meeting, if that."

Section: What is the appropriate remedy?

• "I have found that the transgressions, if any, were minor, and the sanctions imposed in their totality to be unreasonable. There is a sense that the applicant was unfairly dealt with and targeted. These matters have obviously taken an inordinate amount of time and expense and have no doubt diverted the Board’s attention from its primary responsibility of promoting student achievement and well-being."