The court dismissed the former trustee’s appeal of other sanctions she received for her conduct
A former Alberta school board trustee does not have to apologize for posting a meme to her Facebook account that juxtaposed a historical image of children waving swastika flags with a modern image of children waving rainbow pride flags, the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled.
In 2023, the board of the Red Deer Catholic Separate School Division sanctioned Monique LaGrange, then one of the board’s trustees, for posting the meme by ordering her to issue a “sincere” public letter of apology, among other remedies. These included requiring her to attend sensitivity training, barring her from making public statements “in areas touching upon or relating to the 2SLGBTQ+ community [and] the Holocaust,” and banning her from representing the board in an official capacity.
When she challenged the board's decision in court, however, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta found that the requirement for LaGrange’s apology to be “sincere” was unreasonable because there was no objective way to measure sincerity.
In its Sept. 2 ruling in LaGrange v Red Deer Catholic Separate School Division, the ABCA went a step further, tossing out the entire apology sanction on administrative law grounds. The appellate court noted that when the board passed a resolution to sanction LaGrange, the resolution required her to be “deeply sorry” for her conduct.
However, when the board later issued written reasons for its decision to impose sanctions, it stated only that LaGrange was required to “recognize that members of the School Division found [the meme] offensive.”
“The difference is significant,” the ABCA said. The appellate court said, on the one hand, that LaGrange had already satisfied the apology requirements as laid out in the board’s written reasons: At a hearing about her conduct, LaGrange acknowledged that the meme “reflects a minority opinion that many people do not like and are offended by.”
On the other hand, the ABCA said the apology sanction outlined in the resolution, which required LaGrange to be “deeply sorry,” invokes the same issues identified by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. “It purports to prescribe Ms. LaGrange’s personal feelings and imposes a disciplinary standard that is impossible to assess or enforce,” the appellate court said.
The ABCA dismissed LaGrange’s other arguments, including her claims that the remaining sanctions and a second decision disqualifying her from the board are unreasonable.
LaGrange was elected to the board in 2021. After she posted the meme, the board called an informal meeting during which she defended her post. LaGrange then gave an interview to the Western Standard, a conservative social commentary website, stating that the meme “centred around indoctrination and how children are vulnerable to evil agendas (agendas coming from organizations like Planned Parenthood, the UN or SOGI 123) filtering through culture.”
LaGrange added that the meme “is not comparing or attacking the LGBTQ community, it is about protecting our children and keeping parents as the primary educators.” A few days later, LaGrange was quoted as sharing similar sentiments with another online outlet.
The board passed the resolution finding that she had violated its code of conduct and imposed sanctions, including requiring her to issue a “sincere public letter of apology.” Two days later, LaGrange continued posting on social media, including a meme of a wolf wearing makeup with the action, “I just want to read some books to your chickens.” She also gave video interviews published online, arguing that the first meme she posted was not offensive and that she would post it again if she could “rewind time.”
In response, the board passed a second resolution finding that LaGrange had violated the first set of sanctions. The board disqualified her from serving as trustee.
LaGrange challenged both of the board's decisions in court. The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta determined that the first decision was procedurally fair and reasonable, except for the requirements that her apology be “sincere” and that she undergo sensitivity training. The board already had plans to engage in a group training session, so the court said LaGrange could participate in that instead.
The court upheld the second board decision.
Appealing both rulings to the ABCA, LaGrange argued that the board should have taken Catholic values into account when considering whether she had breached the Code of Conduct, that the board had engaged in procedural unfairness, that the board abused its power by requiring her to issue an apology, and that she did not breach the sanctions outlined in the board’s first resolution.
The ABCA agreed only in part with the apology argument.
McLennan Ross LLP partners Teresa Haykowsky and Kathleen Garbutt represented the board. Haykowsky told Canadian Lawyer that the ABCA’s decision is significant because it clearly reiterates administrative law principles. She pointed to the appellate court’s discussion of how the board followed its code of conduct policy to address LaGrange’s conduct, which noted that many members of the board “lack both experience and training in legal decision-making.”
The ABCA said “procedural fairness does not require perfection, and that’s very helpful in the administrative context,” Haykowsky says.
The lawyer also points to the appellate court’s finding that “the board’s decision to hold [LaGrange] accountable for her actions is consistent with Canadian jurisprudence, which recognizes the inherent dignity of gender and sexual minorities and strikes a balance between protecting them from hateful rhetoric in schools and protecting freedom of expression.”
Haykowsky argues that this finding is “not a political statement.”
“It’s a very clear roadmap of the law, and… that’s very helpful when we’re advising school boards or public entities,” she adds.
Counsel for LaGrange did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
