Chilliwack Teachers Association v. Neufeld (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 180
Date Issued: June 11, 2024
File: CS-001372
Indexed as: Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 180
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
British Columbia Teachers’ Federation obo Chilliwack Teachers’ Association
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Barry Neufeld
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO LIMIT PUBLICATION
Rule 5
|
Tribunal Member: |
Devyn Cousineau |
|
Counsel for the Complainant: |
Lindsay A. Waddell and Alanna Tom |
|
On their own behalf: |
Barry Neufeld |
I INTRODUCTION
[1] The BC Teachers’ Federation [BCTF] applies for orders limiting publication of the names of individual teachers who will testify at the upcoming hearing of this complaint, and redacting their names from any parts of the Tribunal’s complaint file that could be made available to the public.
[2] Barry Neufeld has not filed a substantive response to the BCTF’s application.
[3] For the reasons that follow, the BCTF’s application is granted. I order that:
a. No person may publish the names of teachers who testify for the BCTF in connection with this complaint; and
b. The Tribunal will redact the names of teachers who testify for the BCTF in any of the materials it may make available to the public under Rule 5(10).
[4] In a letter dated May 31, 2024, Mr. Neufeld requests that his witnesses also remain anonymous. Mr. Neufeld’s request is denied. He has not provided enough information to show how the privacy interests of his witnesses outweigh the public interest in access to the Tribunal’s process.
II DECISION
[5] Complaints at the Tribunal are presumptively public: Mother A obo Child B v. School District C, 2015 BCHRT 64 at para. 7. This openness serves four main goals: maintaining an effective evidentiary process, ensuring that Tribunal members act fairly, promoting public confidence in the Tribunal, and educating the public about the Tribunal’s process and development of the law: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 SCR 1326 at para. 61; JY v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 106 at para. 25. These goals align with the purposes of the Code , which include fostering a more equitable society and identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality: Code, s. 3. The main way that the Tribunal furthers these purposes is through its public decisions: A. v. Famous Players Inc., 2005 BCHRT 432 at para. 14.
[6] The Tribunal has discretion to limit publication of identifying information where a person can show their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure [Rules], Rule 5(6); Stein v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2020 BCSC 70 at para. 64(a). The Tribunal may consider factors like the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations, private detail in the complaint, harm to reputation, or any other potential harm: JY at para. 30. It may also consider whether the proposed limitation relates to only a “sliver” of information that minimally impairs the openness of the proceeding: CS v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2019 BCCA 406 at para. 37.
[7] The background to this complaint is set out in Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld, 2021 BCHRT 6, upheld in 2023 BCSC 1460. In brief, the BCTF alleges that Mr. Neufeld, an elected school trustee, made and published homophobic and transphobic statements that discriminated against 2SLGBTQ+ teachers and constituted hate speech. The BCTF also alleges that Mr. Neufeld retaliated against the former BCTF President for his participation in this complaint by filing a defamation lawsuit against him. The hearing of this complaint is scheduled to begin in July 2024.
A. BCTF application
[8] The BCTF seeks orders to limit publication of the names of teachers which they expect to testify in this complaint. It says that the teachers are expected to give evidence about their own sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, and how these aspects of their identities impact their experiences at work. It argues that publishing their identities risks exposing them to threats, harassment, and violence. This includes public statements associating them with pedophilia and “child grooming”, which are particularly damaging to their reputations and ability to work with youth and their families. In support of these arguments, the BCTF has submitted evidence of social media posts and news articles, which include statements accusing transgender and 2SLGBTQ+ educators of sexualizing, exploiting, and grooming children. It also points to the media attention that this complaint has already garnered, to support the likelihood that there will be significant public interest in this complaint.
[9] It is incumbent on this Tribunal to ensure that people can participate in its process safely, without fear that they will be exposed to harm as a result. Here, I am satisfied that the BCTF has established that the privacy interests of the teachers outweigh the limited public interest in knowing their specific identities. This Tribunal has acknowledged that transgender and gender diverse people in particular “face high levels of stigma and are at an increased risk of violence, harassment, social isolation and discrimination”: JYat para. 32; Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at paras. 60-65. The BCTF’s evidence in the application supports that these concerns may be particularly acute in the education context, where debate about the curriculum on sexual orientation and gender identity has given rise to heated protest and backlash, including against individual teachers. The potential that the teachers may be targeted and accused of sexual misconduct towards children is real. Such accusations threaten their reputations, as professionals who work daily with children and their families.
[10] I also consider that the limitation I am imposing on public access to this complaint is minimal. The public will still have access to the Tribunal’s decisions, which set out the factual background and reasoning about the complaint. My order limiting publication relates only to a “sliver” of information that is the names of teachers who testify in this proceeding.
[11] The application of the BCTF is granted.
B. Mr. Neufeld’s request
[12] In response to the BCTF’s request, Mr. Neufeld has also requested that the names of his witnesses remain anonymous. To support this request, he says “most of them have endured significant discrimination and harassment for supporting my opinions and are worried about vindictive retaliation”. However, unlike the BCTF, Mr. Neufeld does not explain who his witnesses are, what type of discrimination and harassment they have endured, and the basis for a concern of retaliation. Without this information, I cannot assess their privacy interests in order to weigh those interests against any potential public interest in publishing their identities. This request is denied.
III CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
[13] I order that:
a. No person may publish the names of teachers who testify for the BCTF in connection with this complaint; and
b. The Tribunal will redact the names of teachers who testify for the BCTF in any of the materials it may make available to the public under Rule 5(10).
Any violation of this order will be taken very seriously and may give rise to an order for costs: Code,s. 37(4).
[14] By June 24, 2024the parties must exchange witness lists which identify, by name, the witnesses they intend to call in this complaint. They must also provide a brief will say statement for each witness, setting out the anticipated nature of their evidence.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair