protecting childhood innocence
Barry Neufeld
A Brief History of Barry Neufeld's Human Rights Case
Here is the saga of my 6 years of persecution by the Human Rights Tribunal. It was on October 23, 2017 that I made a public statement on Facebook:
“Transitioning Children was Child abuse.”
In December 2017, the Chilliwack CUPE 411 local publicly announced that their lawyer was filing a human rights complaint, alleging that Barry Neufeld AND the Chilliwack School District had created a unsafe work environment for some of their members.
After the media sensationalized the story (guilty until proven otherwise), the union officially filed the complaint in February 2018.
In April 2018, the Chilliwack Teacher’s Association (CTA), a local of the BCTF, filed a similar complaint, but this time solely against Barry Neufeld.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) offered to represent Neufeld, and he signed a retainer agreement with them. They assigned James Kitchen as his lawyer.
However, in a surprising turn of events, the British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association (BCPSEA) stepped in, asserting that Neufeld, as a trustee, was covered by indemnity insurance. They agreed to cover his defense costs and appointed indemnity lawyers for me.
The JCCF subsequently withdrew from the case.
In November 2018, the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) called for mediation. Present at the mediation were CUPE representatives, their pro bono lawyer, CTA representatives with a BCTF staff lawyer, and I with my indemnity lawyers. The Chilliwack School Board was represented by staff and the board’s lawyer. My indemnity lawyers made a compelling case, defending my statements as reasonable.
The mediation took place in separate rooms with Tribunal member Emily Ohler shuttling between the parties throughout the day in search of common ground. By the end, Ohler proposed a Restorative Justice approach to resolve the matter.
Since I am a recognized leader in Restorative Justice and recipient of the Premier’s Award in 2008 for my work in this field, welcomed the proposal.
I explained that Restorative Justice begins with three core questions:
Who has been harmed?
What are their needs?
How can we make things right?
My legal team asked, "Yes, who has been harmed? What are their names?"
Ohler responded that the unions would not provide names, claiming the victims were too terrified to come forward because they feared being “outed.”
In the spring of 2019, the CTA filed an amended complaint.
Over the next few years, little happened, so my lawyers applied to the BC Supreme Court to quash the human rights complaint. However, just before the hearing, one of the lawyers was seriously injured in a car accident, and the case was adjourned for over a year.
Meanwhile, CUPE grew frustrated with their activist pro bono lawyer and replaced her with their union staff lawyer, who proposed a settlement with the Chilliwack School Board. On October 5, 2020, the board convened an in-camera meeting with their board lawyer to discuss the settlement offer.
I attended the meeting but was asked to leave due to a perceived conflict of interest. But I refused, stating, “I am an elected member of the board, and I will not leave.” Ultimately, the board settled with CUPE by issuing a public apology, donating $5,000 to an LGBTQ+++ charity, and agreeing to attend a transgender issues training session. I abstained from voting on the matter.
In February 2021, Trustee Carin Bondar’s partner, Peter Lang, filed an application with the Supreme Court to remove me from office under Section 58 of the BC School Act, claiming that I had been in a fiduciary conflict of interest during the in-camera meeting where the CUPE settlement was discussed.
With lawyer Paul Jaffe’s help, I won the case, providing evidence that I was covered by BCPSEA’s indemnity insurance. Although I was awarded only $10,000 in compensation, Lang’s legal fees were covered by the BC Federation of Labour.
In the summer of 2023, my lawyers finally secured a hearing before the Supreme Court. The judge approved the CTA’s amended 2019 complaint but declined to quash the BCHRT complaint, calling it “premature.” The case was scheduled to proceed in December 2023.
CUPE later announced that they would no longer participate but would abide by the CTA’s decisions moving forward. The December 2023 hearing was postponed to June 17, 2024.
In January 2024, my lawyers informed me that the CTA had made an out-of-court settlement offer, requesting:
A public apology.
A promise to never run for public office again.
Participation in a reeducation program.
A $50,000 donation to an LGBTQ+ charity.
My lawyers argued that this was a favorable offer, as I risked being found guilty of hate speech if the case went to a full hearing. They also reassured me that the indemnity insurance would cover the $50,000 donation.
I considered the offer carefully. I revised the apology, removed #2 & 3, and searched for an LGBTQ+ charity that would not encourage children to harm their bodies. Ultimately, I rejected the offer entirely. Because I stood my ground for 6 years, Giving in would not protect children from harm. This was not about my Charter Rights or Free Speech: it was about protecting vulnerable children.
Shortly thereafter, I received a letter from the indemnity insurance company informing me that, because I had rejected what they considered a very reasonable settlement, they would no longer cover my defense costs. In March 2024, I began searching for new legal counsel.
The indemnity lawyers offered to continue representing me for a $150,000 retainer.
In the meantime, the BCHRT and CTA lawyers increased the pressure on me with document demands, conference calls, and deadlines. I kept searching for legal counsel, but I was turned down by both the JCCF and Freedoms Advocate after they reviewed the case files. The Democracy Fund did not respond. Paul Jaffe was not available: he was busy defending pastors against COVID infractions.
Due to my lack of legal representation, the BCHRT adjourned the June 17, 2024 hearing to July 4. I appeared with only Kari Simpson as lay counsel. I was grateful there were about 20 of my supporters in the room. The remainder of the hearings were postponed until October 21, for a two-week trial.
The CTA has three anonymized witnesses (school employees who "don’t feel safe"), one expert witness (Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc), former CTA president Ed Klettke, and former BCTF President Glen Hansman.
Kari and I and my supporters began meeting via Zoom on Thursday evenings to strategize.
After months of not being able to find a lawyer who would take my case (except for the ones who wanted more than I could ever pay or ask people to donate towards), I finally got connected again with James Kitchen, who now has his own practice.
According to Kitchen’s website, his “dedication lies in fiercely defending human rights and individual freedoms” and he has earned a reputation as a skillful Christian lawyer. He estimates that the cost for defense would be approximately $60,000. His first step will be to ask for another adjournment to properly prepare for the hearing. The Teacher’s Union will NOT be happy with this, for in six years, they have amassed hundreds of files against me.
I am pleased to announce that the Rights and Freedoms Fundraising Society has agreed to assist me (and other worthy freedom fighters) to raise funds for my defense.
Donate to Barry Neufeld's Case
Donate By Mail
Attn: Barry Neufeld
c/o Rights and Freedoms Fundraising Society
P.O. Box 21004
Chilliwack, BC V2P 8A9
Barry Neufeld News and Case Updates
Request Access to the BCHRT Hearing of Barry Neufeld on Gender Identity or Expression and Sexual Orientation
Please Share This Post Far and Wide!
All legal and quasi-legal proceedings are supposed to be open to the public. The BC Human Rights Tribunal currently forces us to request permission before they will provide access to listen in on any proceedings.
While their website says you must request access 7 days prior to the hearings, they have been granting access to those who applied on Friday, and should continue to grant access to anyone applying over the weekend or Monday morning.
TO APPLY FOR ACCESS TO LISTEN IN
If the hearing is by video conference, at least one week before the hearing, email [email protected] to request dial-in-audio access (listen in only without video) at the presiding Member’s discretion. The email you send us must:
Identify the hearing from the hearing schedule (CS-001372)
Attach a completed and signed agreement to attend the virtual hearing that includes your name and the telephone number you will be dialing in with
More Information on requesting access to a hearing is found on the Tribunal’s website here:
https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/public-hearings/
Email to BCHRT from Lawyer James Kitchen
——- Forwarded Message ——-
From: James Kitchen <[email protected]>
Date: On Friday, November 22nd, 2024 at 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: CS-001372 BCTF obo Chilliwack Teachers Association v. Barry Neufeld_public access requests granted
To: BC Human Rights Tribunal AG:EX <[email protected]>
CC: Alanna Tom <[email protected]>, ‘[email protected]’ <[email protected]>, Sokolova, Maria OHRC:EX <[email protected]>, Stefanie Quelch <[email protected]>, ‘[email protected]’ <[email protected]>, ‘[email protected]’ <[email protected]>, Khan, Sarah OHRC:EX <[email protected]>
Hi Britt,
I anticipate a significant number of people that will be requesting to access the hearing. If those people are denied purportedly because they did not request early enough, the Respondent will regard that denial as a very unfortunate breach of the open court principle, which, of course, is protected by section 2(b) of the Charter.
Completely denying access to a hearing unless those seeking to attend request access at least a week in advance is reasonably perceived by the public as an attempt by the Tribunal to shield itself from public scrutiny, contrary to law.
A process that may be lawful would involve requiring requests to attend and granting those requests within 1 business day of receipt, absent a lawful reason for denying the request.
In those circumstances, members of the public who submitted their requests today would be able to access the hearing starting Tuesday morning, if not also Monday.
This is what the Respondent would expect and what the law of the open court principle demands.
I urge the Tribunal to comply with the law in this regard.
Refusing to do so not only exposes the Tribunal to litigation, it undermines public trust in the Tribunal’s processes.
Regards,
James SM Kitchen
Barrister & Solicitor
Stay Informed
Stay informed with the latest updates on our cases, research and events.
I Consent to Receive SMS Notifications, Alerts & Occasional Marketing Communication from Rights and Freedoms Fundraising Society. Message frequency varies. Message & data rates may apply. Text HELP to 1-877-899-9799 for assistance. You can reply STOP to unsubscribe at any time.
©️ Copyright 2024 Rights and Freedoms Fundraising Society. All Rights Reserved.