Celeste Percy-Beauregard, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Hamilton Spectator

An arthritic finger, a high-top table, and the cellphone game Candy Crush all played into barred trustee Carol Ann Sloat’s alleged transgressions against the Grand Erie District School Board (GEDSB), a panel for the Divisional Court branch of Hamilton’s Superior Court of Justice heard.

In her challenge, Sloat asked the panel of three justices to consider four complaints brought against her — each by a different trustee — over a one-year period, triggering her year-long ban from board and committee meetings.

Both the school board and Sloat have been tight-lipped about the details of these complaints, but what was previously known is that they stemmed from what the longtime trustee felt was an abuse of in camera meetings — where the board meets off the public record — and that she was found to have violated the code of conduct.

A daylong virtual hearing on Tuesday painted a fuller picture of the alleged transgressions of the ousted trustee.

Carol Ann Sloat has represented Brantford on the Grand Erie District School Board for the past 20 years.

The alleged offences

Being a whistleblower

The trouble began when Sloat submitted a complaint to the ombudsman about code of conduct matters she believed shouldn’t have been discussed and voted on in camera, court heard.

Even though she went through the “proper channels,” she was “punished for being a whistleblower,” her lawyer Jordan Lester suggested in court.

As part of the same complaint, put forward by trustee Brian Doyle, the board alleged that when speaking with a principal at an event, Sloat complained about the board by telling him she might not see him around the school that year, since under new policy, trustees aren’t welcome in schools unless expressly invited.

A superintendent who overheard the conversation thought the comment put the principal in a difficult position, court heard. The principal affirmed it didn’t.

Court also heard that a parent emailed Sloat, asking for the process for escalating concerns to the board. Sloat told her she could email director JoAnna Roberto and also gave her the process if she wanted to register as a delegate to speak at a board meeting.

The parent screen-grabbed the emails and posted them in a closed Facebook group, which the board suggested contained racist comments, Lester said. 

He posed that Doyle’s concern was that Sloat shouldn’t have encouraged folks thought to be racist to present as a delegate at a board meeting. 

Lester argued Sloat simply responded to a parent’s question, unaware of an allegedly racist Facebook group.

Waiting areas for in camera meetings

The second complaint, brought forward by board chair Susan Gibson, seemed to have originated from Sloat taking a photo of — and then deleting — an assistant who told her to wait at a high-top table in the hallway, when Sloat was asked to leave an in camera portion of a meeting, court heard.

Sloat went to wait in the kitchen instead.

She couldn’t comfortably sit at the high-top table following knee surgery, and just two days earlier, Gibson had instructed her to wait in the kitchen during the in camera portion — the waiting spot for the past 20 years, Lester said.

Exposing staff to privileged information

The third complaint, brought forward by trustee Tom Waldschmidt, alleges Sloat exposed a staff member to in camera materials they weren’t privy to, when Lester served papers to the board, marked for Roberto.

Conduct at meetings as a member of the public 

Trustee Elaine Thomas brought forward the fourth complaint, which related to Sloat attending meetings as a member of the public during her ban. At that time, no one had told her she couldn’t be there, or asked her to leave, court heard.

At one point during a meeting, Sloat let out a sigh, which Thomas said was disrespectful, court heard. Sloat said the noise came after she painfully bumped her arthritic finger, and a witness said they didn’t hear anything, Lester said.

At another meeting, Sloat was “essentially accused of eavesdropping on a closed session” because she was sitting in the hallway close to the boardroom door, Lester said. Sloat was in the designated public area playing Candy Crush, and said she didn’t hear anything specific, court heard.

A daylong virtual hearing painted a fuller picture of the transgressions trustee Carol Ann Sloat allegedly made against the Grand Erie District School Board.

‘Minimal transgressions’

Barring an elected official for such “minimal” transgressions “must concern this court,” Lester argued.

In her 20 years as a trustee, Sloat had never been disciplined, and yet the board jumped to “the most severe sanctions” possible, he argued.

The Education Act allows the board to bar trustees from attending committee meetings, but only one board meeting as sanctions, Lester pointed out.

And nowhere in the act does it say trustees can be barred from watching meetings virtually, which Sloat eventually was.

When the code of conduct says the purpose of sanctions are to be corrective, “what is this correcting?” Lester asked.

But Mark Zega, lawyer for GEDSB, pointed out that school boards have all adopted different processes — as they are permitted to — which doesn’t mean they’re “wrong.”

He argued the board followed the correct process, and Sloat’s ban didn’t silence her constituents. 

She is one of four trustees representing Brantford, and there is nothing to stop her from having her colleagues bring concerns to the board table, he said.

The decisions made by the board were all within their discretion and the applications for the judicial review should be dismissed “in their entirety,” Zega said.

Decision pending

The panel will decide whether the process followed by the school board was procedurally fair, and the board’s decision reasonable.

In a June verdict, Justice Michael Gibson suspended Sloat’s sanctions while she awaited this hearing.

At the time, he expressed concerns regarding “the process followed by the (school board), the reasonableness of its decisions, its jurisdiction, and the proportionality of sanctions imposed.”

Then, the board slapped new sanctions against Sloat that initially prevented her scheduled return, but an “agreement of the parties” permitted Sloat to participate in all trustee responsibilities, including board and committee meetings, Ryan Strang, senior manager of communications and community relations for the school board, told The Spectator in an emailed statement in September.

It’s unclear what Sloat’s board participation is at present.

At a policy and program committee meeting in October, Sloat made multiple attempts to ask questions and Gibson told her she wasn’t permitted to speak.

It was “in no way connected to code of conduct matters,” Strang told The Spectator in an emailed statement.

However, he did not give the reason, and said the board “will not share further details out of respect for privacy and legal obligations.”

The chair “will assess and determine necessary and appropriate action during future meetings,” his statement said.

In court Tuesday, Lester asked for the panel to quash the board’s decision, and asked that written reasons — to come at a later date — not be subject to a sealing order. A sealing order applies to the first two complaints involving Sloat, shielding those documents from public view.

Sloat has already served all the sanctions that relate to her being barred from board meetings, and didn’t participate in any board business from May 2023 until August 2024.

For a trustee who didn’t miss a meeting for 20 years, that’s “a huge sanction,” Lester said.

Celeste Percy-Beauregard’s reporting is funded by the Canadian government through its Local Journalism Initiative. The funding allows her to report on stories about Brant County. Reach her at cpercybeauregard@torstar.ca.

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---