Judge to rule by early June whether Policy 713 case can continue
Province argues school district can't bring case to court
A judge is expected to rule within the coming days whether a case launched by a Moncton-area school district, challenging a provincial gender identity policy, can continue.
Anglophone East School District and its education council chair, Harry Doyle, are suing Education Minister Bill Hogan and the provincial government, alleging Policy 713 violates the rights of students.
The province argued during a hearing in Moncton on Tuesday that the district cannot bring the case to court for various reasons.
"It's not that we're denying you the ability to get at what you want to get at, it's that you're in the wrong place," lawyer Clarence Bennett, representing the minister, said of the district's lawsuit.
The district argued it can bring the case, and that options the province suggested wouldn't get at the broader issue of whether the policy violates students' rights.
"I appreciate we need an answer on this as soon as possible," Court of King's Bench Chief Justice Tracey DeWare said after several hours of legal arguments.
DeWare told the lawyer she would try to issue a decision on or before June 3.
After
hearing several hours of legal arguments Tuesday, Court of King's Bench
Chief Justice Tracey DeWare said she would aim to issue a decision by
June 3. (Shane Magee/CBC)
It's a decision that could halt one of two constitutional challenges to Policy 713. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has filed a case being heard in Fredericton.
At issue is a change to Policy 713 about self-identification, which says "Formal use of preferred first name for transgender or non-binary students under the age of 16 will require parental consent."
The district education council last year adopted a policy to implement 713, which says "school personnel shall respect the direction of the student in regard to the name and pronouns they wish to be called in daily interactions with school personnel and other students."
Education
Minister Bill Hogan's changes to Policy 713 are at the heart of two
legal challenges unfolding in Moncton and Fredericton. (Ed Hunter/CBC)
Hogan has told Anglophone East to revoke its policy, a step under the Education Act called a request for corrective action.
The district sought injunctions to prevent the minister from revoking the policy and from seeking to dissolve the education council.
While June hearing dates were set for those injunctions, the minister revoked the policy on April 22. The education council then passed a nearly identical version.
The Education Act says that a corrective action can be subject to judicial review, which Bennett argued would be the way the district should have proceeded.
Clarence Bennett, right, a lawyer representing the provincial government leaving the Moncton courthouse on Tuesday. (Shane Magee/CBC)
Perri Ravon, a lawyer representing the district, told DeWare that wasn't an option when the initial filing in the case was made at the start of April because the corrective action had yet to happen.
"The scope of the case goes far beyond any corrective action," she said, saying the district's overall case is a challenge of Policy 713.
Bennett also argued the Proceedings Against the Crown Act prevents the court from granting the injunctions the district is seeking.
Ravon pointed the judge toward other cases that say otherwise.
"You can seek injunctive relief in any constitutional challenge," Ravon said.
Bennett also argued the case is flawed because the plaintiffs, the school district and education chair Harry Doyle aren't students and don't have a personal stake.
"It has to be your own Charter rights at play," Bennett said. He said the district could have sought to get public interest standing in the civil liberties association case, but didn't.
The judge, as Ravon spoke, turned to points the province raised and asked several times whether the courts were the appropriate place.
"That's my concern — we're taking it into the court when the minister is still in his lane, if I can put it that way," DeWare said.
Ravon said the district wants injunctions to prevent any change in the status quo and potential harm to students, while the broader constitutional issue is addressed by the court.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Its the same old same old to me
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
PC are all about small government...except when it comes to policing who you can love and what you can do with your own body.
Is it a Police State?
Bible before business.
We need not go that route. We can plot a different route than the trajectory the US may be on. The opposition is in a political union with someone who wants to be a dictator.
Who are you to offer me advice?
As you no doubt know I ran against all political parties seven times and enjoy arguing lawyers in court
Anglophone East School District is correct.
Province wants to toss out their argument on technicality.
I disagree
That’s nice.
content deactivated –
Its my right
To disagree, sure thing. Welcome to Canada.
I was born and raised here
We have something in common, cool beans.
My Grandmother was a Smith Hence we are likely related
Could be, we go back many generations.
One Grandfather of mine was a Kings Ranger in the 1700s
This will go to the Supreme Court.
Nope
I have crossed paths with every one of the lawyers mentioned even the judge when she was just another snobby lawyer to me.
Welcome back to the circus
This is what comes of allowing humanities PHDs to call themselves "scientists".
Do political "scientists" with PHDs call themselves doctors?
I know fancy lawyers brag of their JDs
You thought that you were autonomous, but you weren't ... SMH
AIs do exist
I don't understand the problem, on birth day the doctor says it' a girl or it's a boy that title should stick for life.
You are not aiding the case for keeping what someone is called at school from some parents.
Have you ever read a book on genes?
biology..........
Same question. Have ever read a book on genes?
Tell me what you think that you know about X and Y chromosomes.
I take that as a no.
Nothing about X & Y chromosomes? Don't you think it would help?
Are all x and y chromosomes the same? How many genes in each?
The human X chromosome is about three times larger than the human Y chromosome, containing about 900 genes, while the Y chromosome has about 55 genes.
Do you know the difference between sex and gender identity?
That is a good start. Now continue reading about gender identity.
That is a good start. Now continue reading about gdnr identity.
Have you ever studied biology?
Were I you, I'd step away from arguments based on science. There is little ambiguity there.
Tell us what you learned about g identity in biology.
You've just answered my question.
Tell us what determines g identity.
Was that not covered?
To repeat, you've answered my question. I'll stick with science.
Have I studied biology? Yes. Now can you explain what biology says about G identity.
You "studied" biology in an "humanities" class.
Are the genes that effect G identity all on the X or Y chromosome?
Identity is irrelevant.
That is what the legislation is about.
Do we need special legislation if a student identifies as a cabbage?
A simple correction is all that's required. No "Billy Poobah", you're not a cabbage. Now do your homework."
Not sure why the province feels legislation is needed at all.
I know that some folks claim a difference. They conflate the two.
As you have conflated identity with the physical expression.
My reaction is based on our culture's conflation. Why would biological men be allowed to compete in women's sport if society had a grasp of the difference?
It's a hard topic to discuss when half of the posts get hung up in the ether...
Not sure what that has to do with the legislation.
Are legislators a part of our culture?
The legislation is about g identity. There are some that refuse to believe that exists apart from the physical expression. Revealing g identity of kids to those people could be harmful.
See "poobah" post.
Are you among those that refuse to believe that the identity can be different than the physical expression?
I believe that identity is irrelevant to the conversation what what is reality.
The legislatures refuse to believe revealing g identity to people who hold "strong" view on this topic can be harmful.
So someone's g identity is not real to them?
Our culture entertains all sorts of nonsense without fear of harm.
A person's imagination is there business. Until they want our society and culture to affirm it.
"their"... sorry.
So this is only there imagination?
It's only their imagination.
Amen
A belief such as that is the reason this should be kept confidential from some parents.
Someone would be wise to keep their over-active imagination from everyone. Less bullying that way.
You have just identified what is trying to be prevented in some homes.
I'd like to keep the state out of my home. Thanks.
Now you are justifying bullying.
You have verified what can be expected in some homes. Bullying.
If I'm the worst of your fears, you've nothing to worry about.
You have just illuminated the concern some have about the harm the legislation may cause.
I favour a hands off government. One that doesn't allow it's actors to interfere with parents and their children. This includes teachers. My G-ma was forced into a residential school at 9. Use your imagination.
That has nothing to do with what is happening here. As I suspected at the beginning you are among those who want to deny these people what is their reality.
Reality isn't subjective.
There is no problem Most folk agree that is the way it always will be. Only greedy lawyers would try to argue that it is not so.
Exactly. Who are you to define their reality?
I'm a member of the community who agrees upon objective reality. If one's reality is influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts; then I'm the one to "reel them in".
And yet you are telling these people their reality isn't real based on your beliefs.
Based on "objective reality" as reinforced by science.
I'm happy to see that you've abandoned science altogether. You were never going to get a solid foundation there.
Who are you to define reality?
there is all kinds of science that backs up that g identity can be different than physical.
It's late and I've got work tomorrow. Whatever you're going through, good luck with it.
Even the government policy that is being challenged acknowledges there can be a difference. Have you read it?
what is g identity?
To them ? yes, but...
Other than their imagination, what is it ?
where? Where is this science ?
What is interesting is the government acknowledges that it is real and yet wants to expose people to those who will not believe it.
Your view contradicts the government position that telling some parents would not be harmful.
That's nice but once again, Other than their imagination, what is it ?
Again read the policy. It defines and and acknowledges g identity as real. You can take it up with them.
But you are arguing for them. I'm taking it up with you
The debate between the government and the schoolboard is not whether it is real, both sides have conceded it is real. The question is whether revealing it to some parents who won't believe it is real can be harmful or not
Harmful, how?
Plenty of parents have done harm to their kids over this, physical and/or mental. This isn’t news.
Those trying to argue for the government requirement to report are simply showing how it could be harmful.
Quantify, plenty.
When does it stop? I guess we should get rid of a minimum age to drive, to vote, to drink, smoke and gamble.
I fail to see the relationship between what the schoolboards wants and your examples which outside voting have the potential for harm.
Clearly you fail to see other things as well
Conservative provinces continue the pronoun deep dive
Ya gotta draw the line somewhere
It’s almost as if this is the first time the government has placed restrictions on what kids can and cannot do. I don’t see anyone lobbying to let kids drink, drive, smoke, vote, gamble, drop out of school etc than they currently can.
Work! Why do we bother with labour restrictions!
Why would someone lobby for kids to to do those?
There are a lot of good places to find information on the subject of child labour and it's dangers.
Surely you jest
They wouldn't, just like they won't in this case
Life has become so complicated for our younger generation. They don't know which end is up.
Kids have never known which end is up. That’s why there are age restrictions on drinking, driving, voting, gambling, etc. But by all means, let them make life altering, permanent changes to their bodies.
What they are called at school is a life altering permanent change to their bodies?
Or what their end is called.
The younger generation are more clued in than we ever were
The erosion of personal rights is now a common occurrence. States in the US and provinces in Canada are at the forefront of this loss of rights.
Not really, at least here in Canada; it starts and ends with the federal government.
The provinces and the opposition are the ones talking about using the notwithstanding clause. So you have it backwards.
and hopefully they do.
Yes, that is hope of the right, a loss personal of rights.
Nope, not backwards at all. Try harder to stay informed on what's happened, and happening, in this country.
I gave an example where these politicians want to override rights.
Methinks you are having fun jerking somebody's chain N'esy Pas?
The clause is legal and does not deprive anyone of their rights
It's been done 7 times in the past, all by provincial Premiers
The clause is invoked to override rights. That is the purpose of the clause.
That is correct. That was my original point and in my reply.
Not individual rights
We need to protect parental rights to raise their kids until they reach the age of maturity.
In an ideal world all parents act in their kids best interest. But that isn't this world.
Who determines when they are mature enough?
Who decided when they are old enough to drink? Drive? Gamble? Vote? How come no one is fighting for their rights to do those things?
Legislators. There is no fight for rights that are already established in law.
Good question
Why is the government even getting involved?
A preview of what to expect more of from the right in Canada.
A little concerning
and thankfully the right will be back in power in both Canada and the US.
Yes, it could be the 1930's all over again.
Ask Mr Cardy he started this nonsense
either way whatever is needed to bring the gov't policy inline (disband the district education councils and/or bring the policy inline) use the notwithstanding clause.
Using the Notwithstanding Clause should be used on a very limited basis and this is not one of those times.
this is most certainly one of those times.
Not at all.
No way
gov't should deduct funding up to any amounts the education councils spend on this court case.
What about the cost of the government using outside lawyers? Should that be taken from Hogan's budget as well?
Why not fire all the lawyers and put the question on the ballot in the pending election?
What a waste of time.
You got that right. Bring on the election so we can get on with real stuff.
I concur
Mr. Doyle was a great MLA for Albert Co so I can't see any reason why he shouldn't continue to work on behalf of the DEC
Do ya think Doyle ever voted for me?
If the children are at risk and vulnerable what is the school proposing we do? Are they suggesting keeping a name from a parent fixes those issues?
As I've mentioned earlier psychologists and social workers should be present
Seems odd as they admit their at risk but they seem not to want to treat them other then to affirm.. Very confusing
Who would be expected to call the parents to request a meeting to discuss the SOGI of their child? The child is expected to approach the staff and confess their difficulty in having to tell their parents. Sounds like a family affair to me; the child will decide when and if.
That’s what makes this all so perplexing. There are already protocols to follow if a kid is at risk at home.
Would have saved the tax payers so much $ and time and effort had the rule changed simply made it mandatory that youth at school can only be addressed by the official name on their birth certificate
That doesn't really address the child's rights.
This doesn't work all the time in a blended family. Birth Certificate may say one thing but the child may only know that her mother's partner is her father, thus the need to accommodate. this isn't just a Gay issue.
Right?!
That is their name
Once the judge squashes this ridiculous case, the province should sue Doyle and his DEC for blatant waste of taxpayer money on lawyers, instead of what the funds were intended for ......students and their education.
And, the DEC would be on the hook for their own legal fees.
It's obvious that Doyle has dug a deep hole for the DEC; should have known better.
It's obvious that you are one of the two people that complained.
This isn’t about Education.
Please pedal harder.
I complained of the taxpayer funds being squandered on nonsense
Well I hope that the court allows the case to continue so they will be able to stop the Hogan and Higgs team from doing more harm to our most troubled children.
If children should have a problem it's up to psychologists and social workers to help them thru their turmoil.
Of course. It might take three years to see one of them, but what could possibly go wrong?
Thats their job
Go Anglophone East School District Go - money well spend to protect the vulnerable kids! Kudos to Harry Doyle and the DEC!
The DEC is to follow government rules. Spending money in such a way just isn't kosher.
Ditto
I called and emailed Doyle months ago with questions about his plans for litigation but he simply ignored me just like all the other politicians do. So I called and emailed his lawyer and got the same result
The issue isn't at all about the rights of students.
The issue is control over the DEC and their willful disregard for the legally responsible entity charged with setting standards and policy for New Brunswick public education.
Progressive liberal ideologies have gone of the rails.
And here I thought it was about a desperate premier trying to get reëlected by picking on a vulnerable minority. How silly of me.
The whole thing is silly
It would be interesting to know where Harry Doyle , and the Anglophone East School district , is taking the money from in the school budget to pay for these massive legal fees that they are piling up . Schools are begging for handouts from corporate donors to pay for programs like morning breakfast for kids ; and the schools have children out raising money to pay for school necessities ; yet the DEC and School District are blowing through taxpayer cash like water on unnecessary legal fees . It does make one wonder for sure ?
Can't say the same for the province, they're swimming in surplus money, right?
Whose money?