Michelle Dorey Forestell, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Kingstonist.com

Ontario’s Divisional Court has reserved its decision in a case testing the limits of confidentiality in closed-session school board meetings.

Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board (HPEDSB) trustee Rachael Prinzen is seeking to overturn two code-of-conduct decisions that found she improperly disclosed in-camera materials to the Minister of Education, resulting in her suspension from board meetings. On Monday, Feb. 23, 2026, a three-judge panel — Justice Andras Schreck, Justice Nancy Backhouse and Justice John Frégeau — heard full-day arguments on whether Prinzen breached statutory confidentiality obligations under Ontario’s Education Act and whether the board’s response was procedurally fair and legally reasonable. The hearing was held via Zoom with all parties in different locations.

Prinzen, who represented herself, challenges board decisions made in November 2024 and May 2025 that concluded she violated rules governing information discussed in camera.

In her court filing, Prinzen argues the sanctions should be paused because they may exceed the Board’s legal authority and were imposed through a flawed process.

Relying on a long-established Supreme Court of Canada test for injunctions, she argues there are “serious issues to be tried,” that she will suffer irreparable harm if barred from meetings, and that the balance of convenience favours allowing her to continue serving while the court reviews the case.

Among her central claims is that the Board’s 90-day sanction — which bars her from multiple Board and committee meetings — goes beyond what is permitted under section 218.3(3) of Ontario’s Education Act, as it read prior to Jan. 1, 2025. Prinzen argues that the legislation allows a trustee to be barred from attending a meeting but not to be effectively suspended from multiple board meetings over a three-month period.

She also alleges breaches of procedural fairness, including, she says, a denial of the opportunity to meaningfully respond before sanctions were imposed. In her filing, she cites correspondence from the Board Chair acknowledging that the process “did not allow” her to provide input during the closed-door session where the determination was made.

The motion further frames the dispute as a matter of whistleblower protection. Prinzen maintains her May 2024 email to the Minister of Education — which triggered the Code of Conduct complaint — was sent in good faith after internal avenues were exhausted, and that disciplining her amounts to retaliation. She argues the Board’s actions violate its own anti-reprisal policy and infringe on her Charter-protected freedom of expression.

Beyond the personal impact, Prinzen contends the sanction harms the public interest by preventing an elected representative from participating in key decisions, including work on the Board’s multi-year strategic plan. By the time a judicial review is heard, she argues, the 90-day penalty will have already been served — rendering the court process effectively meaningless.

Counsel for the board, Jessica A. Koper of Shibley Righton LLP, told the court that Prinzen “does not dispute sending the emails.” The dispute, she said, is whether she was entitled to do so.

Disclosure of closed-session materials

At issue are emails sent in May, October and November 2024 that included dozens of attachments originating from in-camera board discussions. Independent third-party investigators retained by the board concluded the disclosures breached confidentiality provisions tied to section 207 of the Education Act, which permits boards to meet privately in limited circumstances, including when discussing employee matters, litigation, negotiations and other protected topics.

Prinzen told the court she contacted the Minister after raising internal concerns about governance and financial oversight that were “not being addressed.” She argued that she was acting within her responsibilities as an elected trustee and framed herself as a “whistleblower” seeking to provide evidence of wrongdoing by the board.

Justice Schreck pressed the board’s position with a hypothetical, asking whether a lone trustee who believed colleagues were acting improperly would be prohibited from disclosing in-camera discussions, even to alert the Minister.

Koper responded that trustees may raise concerns “in general terms “but cannot attach documents derived from closed meetings or disclose their contents. If the Minister requires records, she argued, the statute provides the province with the authority to obtain them directly from the board.

The exchange highlighted the central tension in the case: whether statutory confidentiality creates a firm boundary around closed-session discussions or whether circumstances exist that justify disclosure.

Procedural fairness concerns

Prinzen also argued that the disciplinary process itself was flawed. She said trustees were provided with pre-written draft motions, which effectively caused them to adopt the investigator’s findings without independently assessing her submissions.

Koper rejected that characterization, saying draft motions are standard practice and included options for both outcomes — a finding of breach and a finding of no breach. She noted that each in-camera meeting lasted more than an hour and that minutes reflect debate and motion changes.

Prinzen further argued she did not receive the final version of one complaint until after the investigation began. The board said the revisions were minor and did not cause prejudice.

The board also disputed Prinzen’s claim that she was denied legal representation, saying only her request to have legal fees paid by the board was refused.

What does “a meeting” mean?

One of the more technical — but potentially consequential — exchanges centred on the meaning of a single phrase in the statute.

The Education Act permits a board to sanction a trustee by barring them from attending “a meeting of the board.”

Prinzen argues that the wording limits any suspension to a single meeting, rendering the board’s 90-day ban on subsequent meetings imposed on her unlawful.

The board countered that “under principles of statutory interpretation, singular wording includes the plural unless the legislature clearly restricts it.” Counsel cited prior case law rejecting similar arguments.

Justice Schreck pressed the ordinary meaning of the phrase, “If I said I went to ‘a meeting’ last week,” he observed, “you wouldn’t think that meant several.”

Counsel responded by pointing again to legislative interpretation rules governing statutory language. The exchange signalled the panel was closely examining whether the board’s sanction stretched the statutory wording beyond its plain reading.

Charter arguments and sealed records

Prinzen advanced arguments under sections 2(b), 7, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, asserting that the board’s actions infringed her freedom of expression and equality rights.

Koper argued that Charter claims were not properly raised during the investigative process and that freedom of expression does not extend to breaching statutory confidentiality obligations or disclosing personal employee information.

The court also heard submissions on an interim sealing order that redacts portions of the record.

The board argued the investigation reports and attachments contain “personal information of employees,” solicitor-client privileged material and unproven “allegations” that could cause “reputational harm” if fully released.

Justice Schreck asked counsel to clarify what was meant by “reputational harm,” prompting reference to allegations of financial misconduct and corruption contained in the materials.

Prinzen argued the open court principle should prevail. She asked that, at a minimum, the Integrity Commissioner’s reports be released, telling the panel the record must be available “to make any sense of it.”

Although much of the content remains redacted, the hearing indicated that the attachments include in-camera reports, internal communications, and documents related to governance and financial oversight concerns.

The panel must now determine whether the statutory confidentiality scheme outweighs the presumption of public access to court records.

Decision reserved

After brief reply submissions, the panel reserved its decision.

The ruling will determine whether the board’s disciplinary findings stand and may clarify how far elected school board trustees can go in raising concerns about their own board’s conduct.

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---