VANCOUVER – A former British Columbia school trustee will be going to court to challenge a $750,000 penalty imposed by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled that he poisoned the workplaces of LGBTQ+ staff members with a public campaign against classroom resources on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Lawyer James Kitchen said in an interview Monday that his client, Barry Neufeld, will be seeking a judicial review in the B.C. Supreme Court after the tribunal last week ordered the payment to members of the Chilliwack Teachers Association who identify as LGBTQ+.
Critics of the ruling have included federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who called it “Orwellian,” and British comedian John Cleese, who said he would avoid performing in B.C. as a result. But it has been applauded by the B.C. human rights commissioner and the BC Teachers’ Federation.
Kitchen said he was not surprised by the outcome, noting that he and his client, a former trustee of the Chilliwack Board of Education, were discussing a judicial review and appeals before the hearing started.
He called the tribunal’s decision a “foregone conclusion,” but said in an interview that they intended to challenge “pretty much all of the findings” at the B.C. Supreme Court — and will continue the fight as far as it goes, which he expects will be the B.C. Court of Appeal. He said the judicial review will be “ready by the second week of March at the latest, maybe the first week of March if we’re lucky.”
“Our position from the get-go was that none of these posts are discriminatory or hateful and so we’ll get to the B.C. Supreme Court and we’re going to argue pretty much the same thing,” Kitchen said.
The Feb. 18 ruling came more than eight years after the BC Teachers’ Federation and Chilliwack Teachers’ Association filed the human rights complaint against Neufeld on behalf of their members, specifically those who identified as LGBTQ+, from October 2017 through 2022.
It says that for five years, Neufeld “publicly denigrated LGBTQ people and teachers and associated them with the worst forms of child abuse,” which created a discriminatory work environment for teachers in the district.
The ruling says he exposed educators to “repeated messages that their very existence was a threat to children, families and social order,” invoking “the most insidious discriminatory stereotypes and tropes” to denigrate their efforts to create an inclusive education environment for LGBTQ+ students.
It says his statements, framed as criticism of the classroom resources known as SOGI 123, included warning that teaching children about diverse sexual orientations primes them for sexual abuse and “characterized trans people, especially children, as confused, abused, manipulated, sexualized, mutilated and deceptive.”
It noted that Neufeld denied his statements were derogatory and argued he was “simply targeting a set of ideas.” But the tribunal said it disagreed.
Kitchen said his arguments before the tribunal were more tailored for a judicial review than the tribunal, so much of the arguments will remain the same.
“We may focus more on the hateful bit than the discrimination bit because obviously the implications for that for society are more grave,” he noted.
Human rights lawyer Susan Kootnekoff said tribunal decisions are on the rise across Canada and decision amounts are also increasing.
“It’s certainly the highest award that I’m aware of that the BC Human Rights Tribunal has made against an individual to date,” she said of Neufeld’s case.
Kootnekoff, the founder of Inspire Law in Kelowna, B.C., said her first impression of the case was that the complaint itself was “not that common” as it was lodged against an individual and not the employer.
She also noted that the judgment’s amount was “certainly a high award against only an individual.”
Kootnekoff, who is not involved in the case, said one potential area of challenge may be around the calculation of the award amount, which appeared to have been based on assumptions.
“It doesn’t even appear that the number of people that were impacted by this is clear,” she said.
The decision states that the complainants’ estimate the number of people who “likely identify as LGBTQ” as between 15 to 16 per cent of its members. It also includes a payment range between about $4,600 and nearly $17,000 per member.
“That’s quite a large range,” Kootnekoff said. “The number might be subject to challenge.”
She noted that tribunals owe a duty of fairness to those before them. “If you have a higher damage award, arguably you’re required to exercise a higher level of fairness,” she said.
Neufeld, reacting to the decision on his website, says he is “concerned about protecting children from confusing and dangerous ideologies.”
He says the tribunal knows he will not be able to pay the $750,000, but that the decision sets a precedent so “in the future, no one else will ever dare to criticize their sacred Gender Ideology.”
“So I must try to overturn this draconian decision,” he said.
“We are applying for a judicial review at the BC Supreme Court, which is effectively an appeal to the ‘real’ courts.”
He called the large financial penalty a “blessing in disguise,” saying it has “shocked everyone into realizing that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is on a power trip.”
“If it had only been $75,000 everyone would have ignored it and thought Barry Neufeld deserved it for being so outspoken,” he said.
The ruling has garnered criticism online, including from British comedian Cleese, who said that as a result of the ruling he will not “risk” scheduling any shows in B.C. while touring Canada this fall.
Conservative Leader Poilievre issued a statement on Sunday calling the ruling “insane and Orwellian.”
“We must defend the truth and free speech against these mad censors,” Poilievre said in the post.
Meanwhile, B.C.‘s human rights commissioner, Kasari Govender, welcomed the ruling and said in a statement last week that it “affirms that hateful statements or publications are not shielded from the Human Rights Code because they are part of public or political discourse.”
“Publishing statements that deny trans identities and rely on stereotypes create significant harm,” Govender says in a statement issued Thursday.
“The decision is significant for ensuring that human rights laws apply to political and public statements from our elected officials and affirming that trans people are entitled to have their identities recognized and rights respected.”
Harman Bhangu, a B.C. Conservative leadership candidate, called the tribunal a “kangaroo court run by a woke activist judiciary.”
“When I become Premier: it’s gone on day one,” he said on social media Saturday.
Fellow candidate Caroline Elliott issued a similar statement on Sunday, saying the $750,000 penalty “kills free speech and erodes democracy.”
“British Columbians are forced to spend millions to fund this playground for NDP activists to live out their social justice dreams as needed programs are cut,” she said in her post to X.
“The NDP’s so-called ‘Human Rights Tribunal’ has got to go.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 23, 2026.
