TORONTO, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that Our Duty Canada can now present legal arguments to the court in Carolyn Burjoski’s lawsuit against the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) and former Board Chair Scott Piatkowski. Associate Chief Justice J. Michal Fairburn of the Ontario Court of Appeal granted Our Duty Canada intervenor status on August 9, 2024.

Carolyn Burjoski, former elementary and continuing education teacher, is suing the WRDSB and Mr. Piatkowski for defamation after she was expelled from a January 17, 2022 public school board meeting. At that meeting, she had objected to the Board’s plan to ban library books it deemed “harmful.” She also objected to the Board’s decision to include age-inappropriate books addressing sexuality and sterilization in the elementary curriculum.

During her presentation, Ms. Burjoski expressed concern that the proposed sex-ed materials sexualized children and downplayed the risks of medically assisted gender transitions. Her presentation referenced a passage from the book, The Other Boy, by M. G. Hennessy, which portrays a young girl who identifies as a boy and takes puberty blockers and testosterone as part of a medical sex transition. Ms. Burjoski commented that some of the books “make it seem simple or even cool to take puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones.”

Ms. Burjoski’s presentation was cut off after only four minutes by Chair Piatkowski, who stated that it violated the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Board voted to uphold Mr. Piatkowski’s decision. Ms. Burjoski was expelled from the meeting.

Ms. Burjoski brought a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Piatkowski and the WRDSB. In her Statement of Claim, Ms. Burjoski argues that Mr. Piatkowski made “false and defamatory statements” about her in local and social media. She also argues that the Board made defamatory statements to WRDSB staff.

Ms. Burjoski says she became the centre of an “international news story” where she was unfairly described as transphobic and discriminatory because of “Piatkowski and [the WRDSB’s] conduct and their false and malicious statements.” As a result, she has experienced stress, which led to her being hospitalized for anxiety.

In response, the defendants claim that Mr. Piatkowski’s comments in the meeting, to media and on social media, were “entirely appropriate.” They argue that comments made by the Board and Piatkowski were not made maliciously and that they were not intended to inflict emotional harm on Ms. Burjoski.

After Ms. Burjoski filed her lawsuit, the Board and Mr. Piatkowski filed an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion. Anti-SLAPP motions seek to strike down lawsuits designed to silence the expression of concerned citizens. On November 23, 2023, Superior Court Justice J. A. Ramsay rejected the anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case. The WRDSB and Mr. Piatkowski have appealed that dismissal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now granted Our Duty Canada intervenor status in this appeal.

Our Duty Canada is a peer support network for parents of children who have experience with transgender ideation. As intervenors, they now have the right to present legal arguments to the court. They will represent the perspective of parents who want to speak out against harmful school materials and policies. To that end, they will make submissions on:

• the existence of an important, ongoing public debate about minors and transgenderism, including the age, manner, and place in which to discuss issues of sex, sexuality, and transgenderism with children. Our Duty Canada will argue that good faith contributions to this debate lie close to the core of free expression and should not be characterized as harmful, erroneous or extreme; and
• how the Court should approach cases involving “counterspeech,” which is when the defendant’s allegedly defamatory expression is made in response to comments by the plaintiff. Our Duty Canada will argue that if a plaintiff’s speech has been reasonable, the need to counter that speech is reduced. As a result, the Court should provide less latitude or leeway for defamatory comments made by a defendant.
• that pejorative language and ad hominem attacks, which fail to provide reasoned, substantive and thoughtful critique, add nothing to the actual discourse and are not in the public interest, particularly where the defendant is a government actor.

Karin Litzcke, coordinator and volunteer with Our Duty Canada, stated, “Our Duty Canada appreciates being granted intervenor status in this matter and hopes that our members’ experience with school boards will assist the court in preserving robust public discourse.”

Lawyer Hatim Kheir stated, “We are pleased to see that Our Duty Canada will be able to contribute to this appeal and represent the perspective of parents who wish to participate in public discussion on matters that affect their children.”