ABCA LaGrange Apology Sanction Unenforceable: Court Finds It Impossible to Assess

• The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that former trustee Monique LaGrange does not have to issue an apology for a controversial meme.
• The court found the school board's requirement for a "sincere" or "deeply sorry" apology to be unenforceable on administrative law grounds.
• Such subjective emotional requirements are impossible to assess or enforce, setting a precedent for public body disciplinary actions.
• LaGrange had posted a meme juxtaposing swastika flags with rainbow pride flags, leading to sanctions from the Red Deer Catholic Separate School Division.
• While the apology sanction was dismissed, other penalties, including sensitivity training and restrictions on public statements, were upheld by the court.

Such a requirement, according to the ABCA, "purports to prescribe Ms. LaGrange's personal feelings and imposes a disciplinary standard that is impossible to assess or enforce."

The Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) has ruled that a former school board trustee, Monique LaGrange, is not obligated to issue a public apology for a controversial meme she posted on social media. The appellate court, in its September 2 ruling in *LaGrange v Red Deer Catholic Separate School Division*, dismissed the entire apology sanction previously imposed by the Red Deer Catholic Separate School Division on administrative law grounds, finding it impossible to assess or enforce.

This decision overturns a key component of the sanctions LaGrange received in 2023 from the board, which had initially ordered her to issue a "sincere" public letter of apology. While the Court of King's Bench of Alberta had previously found the requirement for a "sincere" apology unreasonable due to the lack of objective measurability, the ABCA went further, striking down the entire apology requirement. The court's reasoning centered on the board's shifting language regarding the apology, from requiring LaGrange to be "deeply sorry" in its resolution to merely acknowledging that the meme was found "offensive" in its written reasons.

The ABCA highlighted a significant discrepancy between the board's initial resolution and its subsequent written explanation for the sanctions. The resolution mandated LaGrange be "deeply sorry" for her conduct, a subjective state that the appellate court deemed problematic. In contrast, the board's later written reasons only required her to "recognize that members of the School Division found [the meme] offensive," a condition the ABCA noted LaGrange had already met by acknowledging the meme reflected a minority opinion that many found offensive.

The court emphasized that the resolution's demand for LaGrange to be "deeply sorry" invoked the same issues identified by the Court of King's Bench. Such a requirement, according to the ABCA, "purports to prescribe Ms. LaGrange's personal feelings and imposes a disciplinary standard that is impossible to assess or enforce." This ruling establishes a precedent that public bodies cannot impose disciplinary sanctions that mandate subjective emotional states, as these are inherently unmeasurable and unenforceable under administrative law principles.

The dispute originated from a meme LaGrange, then a trustee, posted to her Facebook account. The meme juxtaposed a historical image of children waving swastika flags with a modern image of children waving rainbow pride flags. Following this post, the school board convened an informal meeting where LaGrange defended her actions.

She subsequently gave interviews to online outlets, including the Western Standard, where she explained that the meme was about "indoctrination and how children are vulnerable to evil agendas (agendas coming from organizations like Planned Parenthood, the UN or SOGI 123) filtering through culture." LaGrange maintained that the meme was not intended to compare or attack the 2SLGBTQ+ community but rather to protect children and uphold parents as primary educators. She reiterated similar sentiments to another online outlet shortly after.

Despite the ABCA's decision to strike down the apology requirement, other sanctions imposed on LaGrange by the Red Deer Catholic Separate School Division remain in effect. These include her mandatory attendance at sensitivity training, a prohibition from making public statements concerning the 2SLGBTQ+ community or the Holocaust, and a ban from representing the board in any official capacity. The appellate court dismissed LaGrange's other arguments, including her claims that these remaining sanctions and a separate decision disqualifying her from the board were unreasonable.

LaGrange's conduct following the initial sanctions also played a role in the ongoing disciplinary process. After the board passed its resolution finding a code of conduct violation, LaGrange continued posting on social media, including another meme featuring a wolf in makeup with the caption, "I just want to read some books to your chickens." She also gave video interviews asserting the original meme was not offensive and that she would repost it if given the chance to "rewind time." LaGrange was elected to the board in 2021 before the meme incident occurred.

This ruling sets a precedent that public bodies cannot impose disciplinary sanctions requiring subjective states like 'sincere' or 'deep' apologies, as these are impossible to assess or enforce. Lawyers advising public entities must ensure disciplinary resolutions are drafted with objectively measurable terms, while compliance officers should review codes of conduct to avoid such unenforceable requirements.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer