[ 81] This was the question facing the principals when they considered the applicant’s accommodation demand letter dated
September 20, 2010. This was the PEACE standard form
that included the list of ten sensitive topics described by my
 I do not criticize the manner in which the school board
principals approached the delicate task of discerning just what
was truly important to the appellant from the amorphous list my
colleague accurately described as “so broad and ill-defined that it
would be impossible for the Board to determine in advance when
a lesson or activity might result in exposure to a ‘false teaching’”.
Nor do I underestimate the difficulty faced by teachers and principals. They must navigate humanely, sensitively and fairly
between the appellant, his children and their classmates who are
living in the same-sex circumstances that the appellant considers
to be morally unacceptable. This is a frontier on which deep and
wounding emotions can be engaged, and where reconciling and
balancing is both difficult and necessary.
 The PEACE letter, entitled “Our Family’s Traditional
Values,” sets out the basic request that the parent be given
notice “whenever concepts or values are presented that may conflict with the values of the home”. It requests that the parent be
given an opportunity to “not have my/our child participate” and
to be put in a position to know that “a family discussion about
what was learned” was needed. The letter noted that the
parents’ concern was to ensure that the school do nothing to
“undermine the values taught at home” which are “important for
achieving eternal life”.
 The appellant’s request morphed somewhat as the case
progressed over the years. It was narrowed in the appellant’s
discussions with the principals and in the appellant’s affidavit,
but expanded again to the original list in his cross-examination.
 As is evident from the transcript of the November 18,
2010 meeting with the principals, the appellant was especially
concerned about issues of human sexuality. This would include
the use of school books that depicted “two mommies in a book”.
The appellant wanted his children to be excused from class
when such discussions arose.
 The school board representatives were resolute in stating
that they would not permit the appellant’s children, then four
years old and six years old, to be excused. They stated that doing
so would discriminate against classmates who might happen to
be living in the same-sex circumstances the appellant found
to be unacceptable. In the course of the meeting, an interesting