Trustee Michael Del Grande lost another round in his legal battle, after Ontario’s top court upheld a ruling that the 海角社区官网Catholic school board acted reasonably in censuring him for proposing sexual fetishes be added to the code of conduct during a debate on including gender issues.聽
In , the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld last year’s decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court, which found the 海角社区官网Catholic District School Board acted within its scope of authority when censuring Del Grande for comments he made at a November 2019 public meeting.
“The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court鈥檚 decision was reasonable and upheld it,” TCDSB Chair Nancy Crawford told the Star in a statement. “The Divisional Court鈥檚 decision upheld the board鈥檚 2020 decision regarding Trustee conduct.”
The Star contacted Del Grande, but did not hear back by time of publication.
When reached early in the afternoon, his lawyer Charles Lugosi said he hadn’t yet read the decision closely, nor spoken with Del Grande about it.聽
“I have a lot of respect for the Court of Appeal ,” Lugosi said. ” So, I just need to take time to evaluate and think about what they said.”
Lugosi said it was “premature” to discuss an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Lugosi argued the divisional court erred on four grounds, but the appeal court panel聽鈥斅爅ustices Sally Gomery, William Hourigan and Gary Trotter聽鈥 disagreed on all points.
The appeal court ruled Del Grande must pay the board’s legal fees of $47,500. And聽the divisional court ruling said Del Grande is on the hook for the board’s tab in that filing, which amounted to $140,000.
The case stems from comments Del Grande made at a November 2019 meeting. Trustees were debating a motion聽to add four new grounds on which discriminatory practices are barred聽鈥 gender identity, gender expression, family status and marital status聽鈥 as required by the province and human rights law.
Del Grande, who was opposed, proposed an amendment, saying if those grounds were added, so too should a long list of sexual fetishes and paraphilias, such as pedophilia, cannibalism, bestiality and vampirism. When a fellow trustee noted many of those practices were criminal, Del Grande responded, 鈥淕od made them all.鈥
In his appeal court filing, Del Grande described it as “a facetious parody motion,” saying he was using聽“rhetorical hyperbole to illustrate a ‘slippery slope’ argument.” At the meeting, he was ruled out of order and trustees voted in favour of adding the four grounds.
Afterward, the TCDSB received more than a dozen complaints, saying Del Grande’s comments聽were intended to shame vulnerable members of the LGBTQ community, prompting the board to launch an independent review. An investigator found聽Del Grande聽violated the Trustees鈥 Code of Conduct by creating an 鈥渦nwelcoming and harmful environment” for some in the TCDSB community and had 鈥渃rossed the line鈥 using 鈥渋nflammatory language.鈥
The investigator acknowledged Del Grande had a right to provide a Catholic perspective and that the Code of Conduct mandates trustees to 鈥渞igorously defend the constitutional right of Catholic education,鈥 but concluded his comments were “disrespectful,聽not inclusive and lacking in compassion.”
In August 2020, trustees voted on whether Del Grande had breached the code, but were one vote short of the two-thirds majority required. That sparked a public outcry. In November 2020, they reconsidered聽鈥 this time voting to censure and sanction Del Grande, including asking him to publicly apologize and undergo equity training.
In December 2020, Del Grande tried unsuccessfully to appeal that decision, and the sanctions, to the TCDSB. He went to divisional court seeking a judicial review of the board’s decision.
In part, he argued, a second vote by trustees isn’t allowed under the Education Act and the board’s procedural bylaws. He also said the board’s decision violated his Charter rights to freedom of religion and of expression.聽
The divisional court ruled in January 2023 that the TCDSB acted within its authority in reconsidering its initial decision, and its decisions were reasonable. It determined the board appropriately balanced Del Grande鈥檚 Charter rights and its own mandate under the Act and the Code of Conduct.
With files from Star archives
