B.C. court dismisses lawsuit filed by Chilliwack resident over school board censoring remarks

Armani, a former SD33 employee of 10 years and grandmother of two children enrolled in the BC school system, attended the meeting of the school board on June 13, 2023 to express her concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving an elected board member. The JCCF says she began her remarks by saying that trustee Teri Westerby had brought forward a motion that the board support pride month in June and raise a pole to fly the pride flag. As di Armani began to point out that Westerby was also the director of marketing for the Chilliwack Pride Society, she was interrupted by Reichelt, in conjunction with vice-chair Carin Bondar claiming that di Armani’s remarks were “discriminatory” to a board member.

Before the public participation period began in the video, Reichelt reminded the public not to be disparaging or discriminatory in their remarks and not to mention any individuals by name.

According to the JCCF, former chair Reichelt also told di Armani that trustee’s names were not to be used during meetings and that there could be no conflict of interest because there was “no pecuniary interest.” Chair Reichelt further stated, “When you are talking about a human right, there is no conflict of interest,” the JCCF said.

Over the course of the next two minutes, JCCF says di Armani was interrupted four times and had her microphone cut off. At times, the audio for the entire meeting was muted, and there is simply silence on the public record. A full-length video of the proceedings, including the muted segments, is available on the District’s YouTube Channel.

According to the court filing, di Armani said she was advised by chair Reichelt that she could speak to her own feelings about pride, but if she called out a trustee by name she would have to take a seat. After being silenced repeatedly, di Armani argues that Bondar told her, “Basic human rights include reflection of human rights [sic].”

In addition to this alleged violation of her own charter-protected freedom of expression, JCCF said Armani also objected to the school board’s policy of not allowing members of the public to make their own recordings of these public meetings. As she entered the meeting, she was required to sign an undertaking stating she would not record anything. With the school board controlling the only recording of the meeting, and choosing to mute the recording, di Armani alleges that the school board is violating the charter-protected right of other people to hear, listen and consider alternative viewpoints.

The board was created by British Columbia’s School Act, which requires the Board to hold public meetings and to create bylaws to regulate those meetings. While the chair is authorized to cut off the remarks of speakers who don’t comply with their bylaw, the chair is not allowed to silence people simply because the chair disagrees with what someone is saying, JCCF argued. Di Armani sought a court declaration that the board exceeded its authority and infringed on her charter rights.

The Court found that the board chair was vested with broad authority to regulate public meetings, even though the board’s bylaws only permitted cutting off speakers for specific reasons that did not apply here. It further held that reviewing the Board’s decision to interrupt and mute di Armani was unnecessary, because the board later acknowledged it was wrong to silence her, the JCCF alleged.

As the Court stated, “While the Chair’s letter to the petitioner may not state Ms. Di Armani’s right to free expression was unreasonably curtailed, there is no other logical way in which her decision can be read. In reconsidering their position, the Board clearly found the original decision to terminate Ms. Di Armani’s participation was wrong, and that the petitioner should be permitted to voice her comments or questions.”

The Court also held that the recording ban at the June 2023 meeting was justified due to specific safety concerns, including a reported death threat, and found that the claim did not properly challenge the Board’s subsequent ongoing ban on recording.

Now that the petition has been dismissed, legal counsel from the JCCF will review the decision and consider whether to appeal.

by Mike Vanden Bosch

B.C. court dismisses lawsuit filed by Chilliwack resident over school board censoring remarks

More Local News