— Environmental Worship — placing environmental Issues/
concerns above the value of Judeo-Christian principles and human life;
— Instruction in sex education;
— Discussion or portrayals of sexual conduct that we determine to be
unnatural/unhealthy (anal sex, oral sex, masochism, bestiality, fetish,
— Discussion or portrayals of homosexual/bisexual conduct and relationships and/or transgenderism as natural, healthy or acceptable.
[ 15] The Board engaged in a series of discussions with E.T.
extending over a two-year period. These included a lengthy meeting between E.T., the school principal and the Board’s principal
of organizational leadership-equity. After considering E.T.’s
requests and reviewing the matter with its equity consultant,
the Board maintained its refusal of the accommodation E.T.
requested. In these discussions with E. T., it became clear that his
concerns were focused on issues pertaining to sexual orientation.
He indicated that he did not object to his children being taught
“facts” about such matters but he did object to his children being
exposed to views or “value judgments” that did not match “his
[ 16] The Board indicated that it could excuse E.T.’s children
from the human development and sexual health segment of the
curriculum. However, the Board advised E.T. that, given its com-
mitment to creating schools that are safe, respectful and support-
ive of all, where diversity is valued and everyone feels accepted,
it could not otherwise accommodate his request. As the Board’s
equity principal explained in an affidavit filed on the application:
The message to classmates if E.T.’s request was accepted, is not tolerance
but rather that family structures or discussion of sexual orientation will
require the withdrawal of a student from the classroom. This cannot be rec-
onciled with the Board’s legal obligations with respect to human rights and
[ 17] As it was unable to provide the accommodation E.T. had
requested, the Board suggested that E.T. might consider enrolling his children in a public Catholic school or a private Christian school or homeschooling them.
( 3) The ruling of the application judge
 The application judge gave detailed and considered reasons for dismissing the application.
[ 19] He found that a declaration of E.T.’s parental authority
over his children’s education should not be granted on the
ground that a “black-and-white” declaration of parental authority
in favour of the appellant would oversimplify a nuanced point in