Legal challenge launched over WRDSB’s land acknowledgements

Contents of the article

The Waterloo District School Board is facing a legal challenge over mandatory land certification.

Contents of the article

The review was initiated on behalf of Jeffrey Horsman, a professor of biochemistry and member of the Council (Council) of Kitchener-Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational Schools, and the father of three children attending area schools.

Contents of the article

Contents of the article

In a filing on Horsman's behalf, lawyers for the Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) argue that reading certifications of land rights at school board meetings is a violation. Charter of Freedoms by imposing ideological statements and prohibiting debate.

Horsman's concerns began when the council began beginning its meetings with land acknowledgments, even though there had never been a vote or debate on the practice, according to the JCCF.

In the spring of 2025, he tried to put the issue on the agenda for discussion, but the chairman of the board refused and referred him to the school principal.

Contents of the article

Contents of the article

On May 9, JCCF reported that the principal told Horsman that the board required land confirmation at all school board meetings and that the topic could not be discussed.

IN THE AUTUMN THE COUNCIL DOUBLED

Later, in an Oct. 29 email, Vinay Tiwari, the board's system administrator for equity and inclusive education, wrote that “area recognitions will continue to be a part of School Board and WRDSB meetings” and added that questioning the validity of equity-focused initiatives “risks undermining the dignity of our community members.”

Horsman's judicial review argues that the council's conduct violated the charter in three ways: starting with the mandatory land acknowledgment, forcing it to endure a statement that contradicts its belief in the inherent dignity and equality of all people.

Contents of the article

The brief also said that prohibiting any discussion of land acknowledgment issues at school board meetings denies Horsman the ability to raise or challenge the issue, engaging in freedom of expression protected by the Charter.

And the third reason is that he argues that the Board has no statutory power under the Education Act or Ontario Regulation 612/00 to dictate school board practices or impose ideological declamations.

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Khair The statement reads: “School boards exist to give parents a voice. It is unconstitutional for the Board to require the Board to make ideological rants and prohibit any debate to the contrary.”

Horsman added in a statement: “Most egregiously, parents are prohibited from even discussing the appropriateness of such statements at school board meetings, one of the few formal channels of communication available for parental input.”

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Play video

Contents of the article