A Montreal primary school is the target of a “excessively monopolizing” father who multiplies appeals before the courts. After trying to exempt his daughter from a course on gender identity, he complains that she had to answer a questionnaire on intimidation containing the words “pede” and “swatte”.
What to know
- A father multiplies appeals before the courts against the Marguerite-Bourgeoys school service center.
- He complains that his daughter had to answer a questionnaire on intimidation containing the words “paden” and “swatter”.
- His pursuit was rejected throughout the line.
The pursuit-the eighth that the father brought against the Marguerite-Bourgeoys school services center (CSSMB)-was rejected throughout the line by judge Sylvie Lachapelle.
His decision, made in early July, paints the portrait of a man “excessively monopolizing, impatient and intolerant”, impossible to satisfy since he “will always find something to complain about”.
He had also been dismissed in another case publicized last winter, when he wanted to exempt his daughter from a course on gender identity for religious reasons.
This time, the father reproached the CSSMB for exposing his daughter to “sexual connotation words” in a questionnaire on violence and intimidation.
We have chosen not to reveal his identity, so as not to prejudice his daughter.
In the winter of 2023, a questionnaire was distributed to students of 5e Year of Laurentide primary school, in the arrondissement of Saint-Laurent.
To assess the school climate, the students had to indicate whether they had witnessed acts of violence or intimidation at school or if they had been victims.
According to the complainant, the questionnaire was “not adapted to the language and maturity of the children questioned”. He identified more particularly a passage where the students were asked if they had already been treated with names such as “Pédé, Tapette, Fif, Gouine”.
The father, of Muslim confession, allegedly had been forced to explain these terms to his daughter on his return from the school, “which caused him great discomfort”.
He demanded $ 10,000 in damages at the school service center to compensate for “the great stress experienced by him and his family”.
Prepared by researchers
The questionnaire, a version of which was specifically designed for students in the 4e at 6e year of primary school was developed by researchers from the University of Montreal. It has been used for several years in schools, notes the decision.
The CSSMB underlines that the students filled it anonymously during a class period, under the supervision of a teacher.
Two psychoeducators were also present. One of them testified before the court that he had given instructions to the children during the exercise, such as the fact that there was no good or bad response. She also warned them that they could be surprised by certain questions and that she was there to explain them to them.
According to the stakeholders present, no child has expressed discomfort or disarray by filling the questionnaire, including the complainant’s daughter. She even displayed a smile by making her copy.
In general, the students were “happy that they are asked to have their views”.
In addition, the court retains that the questionnaire has been approved by the school board, to which at least four parents sit. According to the CSSMB, the complainant never attended his meetings, even if the agenda is transmitted to all parents.
Incessant complaints and threatening interactions
Far from ignoring the complaint, the school took “a lot of time and efforts to respond to the applicant and to try to appease him and give him satisfaction, which is impossible,” said the decision.
In addition to rejecting the prosecution, the court accepted the CSSMB’s request to declare the abusive appeal.
The latter is part of “in a context of multiplication of judicial, almost judicial and administrative actions” which disrupts the functioning of the organization.
In recent years, the father notably brought three prosecution to contest the health measures put in place by the school, all rejected.
In one of them, he demanded $ 2,000 in damages for the stress caused by the reception of a letter informing him of a case of COVID-19 at the school of his daughter.
Already, the court described in this judgment a behavior characterized by “incessant complaints” and “threatening” interactions with school staff.
