Our last report about TCDSB Trustee Michael Del Grande’s loss at the Court of Appeal revealed that Justin Trudeau appointee, Justice Sally Gomery, who wrote the decision, was a woke, “diversity and inclusion” activist.

With Gomery on the judicial panel, the odds were stacked against Michael.

She ought to be ashamed for not recusing herself from the case given the existence of a reasonable apprehension of bias and the perception that it could be difficult for her to remain impartial given her likely disdain for Mike’s religious beliefs and her past activism on the other side of the very issues on which he was convicted by his peers.

Consider that the reason Mike was found guilty of “trustee misconduct” and sanctioned by the TCDSB is because he spoke out against transgender ideology in Catholic schools, which unleashed a national hate campaign by the LGBT lobby.

Now, let’s consider Gomery’s written answers to the questionnaire she completed as a judicial nominee, which make it clear that she’s a pro-LGBT activist. Here’s an excerpt from her publicly available questionnaire:

“For example, in my leadership role I oversaw the creation of Pride, our firm’s LGBT affinity group, which has since gone on to win awards for its leadership role.” (emphasis added)

Her questionnaire responses, replete with Marxist dog whistles like “unconscious bias” and “equity-seeking groups”, also signaled that she would end up abusing the judge’s gavel by not merely interpreting the law, but actively “fighting” against the institutions with which she disagrees. For example:

“I have actively fought unconscious and institutional bias whenever I encounter it. I would continue to do so as a judge.” (emphasis added)

This appears to be a judge who’s emotionally attached to the cause of LGBT Pride.

Is it conceivable that she seized the opportunity to “fight” Michael Del Grande and the “institutional bias” of his Catholic Church, by disregarding his constitutional rights and sound legal principles?

The multiple times she contradicted her own logic reinforces this possibility in my mind. I’ll now share an example.

‘Reading language in’ is fine for me, but not for thee!

One of Del Grande’s central arguments was that the TCDSB’s second misconduct trial held November 11, 2020 where it found him “guilty”, was illegal. The board had already tried him over the exact same complaints on August 20, 2020, and found him not guilty, so it should have ended there.

Del Grande’s lawyer argued that a second trial overturning the previous not guilty verdict was illegal for several reasons, one of which is the fact that that Ontario’s Education Act explicitly laid out a process by which trustees who are found in violation of the code of conduct can appeal the decision.

However, the Act did not grant any power for the board to appeal an innocent verdict, nor to keep holding votes over and over until the pro-LGBT faction got the result they wanted.

This is where Justice Gomery’s bias and logical contradictions became evident. In her written decision, she shot down Del Grande’s legal defense, stating that it was inappropriate for his lawyer to “read language into” the act which was not explicitly there. Namely, a prohibition against trustees overturning a not guilty verdict. Here’s an excerpt from Gomery’s decision:

“As Mr. Del Grande’s counsel conceded in oral argument, his proposed interpretation of s. 218.3 would require reading language into the Act that is not there.” (emphasis added)

So, Justice Gomery is a stickler for relying only on the plain and explicit language of legislation, is she? As it’s described in the legal world, she must be a strict textualist!

Well, not really.

Just seven pages later, she herself “read language into” Section 2.b of the Charter to justify depriving Del Grande of the protections afforded by the right to freedom of expression.

You see, another of Mike’s legal defenses was that as a free Canadian, he had a Charter-protected right to read out the anti-gender identity motion that got him in trouble at the board meeting, in whatever rhetorical manner he wanted, to make his point sink in.

Here’s the full text from the Charter of Rights and Freedom:

Any reasonable person would agree that “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” is plain language with no implied exclusions. Not so for our woke judge, however!

Gomery “read language into” Sec. 2(b) by claiming that the Charter right to freedom of expression implies that it cannot be used to vigorously oppose transgender ideology.

Here’s the excerpt in which she shot down freedom of expression as a defense available to Mike:

“Mr. Del Grande’s remarks at the meeting ignored the inherent dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. As such, they are “not representative of the core values underlying s. 2(b)": Kempling, at para. 77.” (emphasis added)

But where does the Charter say that LGBTQ+ are the “core values underlying s. 2(b).”?

It doesn’t say that at all. Anywhere.

To throw Justice Gomery’s own words back at her, I’ll say that such a finding “would require reading language into the Charter that is not there.”

Her decision was a biased, self-contradictory sham, and a miscarriage of justice. I rest my case, your honour.

In the next report, I’ll explain how she had very selective reverence for the Education Act, holding up as gospel only the sections she could use to nail Mike, while ignoring others that would tend to exonerate him.

In the meantime, our crowdfunding campaign to raise the funds he needs to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada has only reached 31% of the goal.

If we cannot raise the $100K for Trustee Del Grande, he will have to give up.

Will you ensure Trustee Del Grande has the legal funds necessary to take this case to the Supreme Court of Canada by making a donation of $100, $500 or even $1,000?

Any donation amount is appreciated for our brave Christian warrior. If the Supreme Court does not agree to hear his appeal, the funds raised will be used to pay the cost awards and outstanding legal bills.