NUNTIATORIA

The Alexanders and Ontario’s Mandated Ideology: A Case Study in Conscience and Control

In October 2023, Ontario teachers Matt and Nicole Alexander were dismissed by the Renfrew County District School Board after more than two decades of service. Their offense was not negligence or misconduct but a refusal to comply with directives requiring teachers to “celebrate and affirm” LGBT ideology in their classrooms. Matt, a Grade 7/8 teacher, had been suspended in April 2023 following complaints linked to his son Josh’s public opposition to gender-neutral bathroom policies, despite not having a social media presence himself. Nicole, a kindergarten teacher, was suspended in May after quietly removing a Pride poster taped to her classroom door without her consent. Within minutes she was summoned to the office, ordered to pack her belongings, and later dismissed alongside her husband when both refused to comply with the new requirements¹.

The ordeal of the Alexander family deepened as Josh himself had already been suspended and arrested for defending girls’ bathrooms against male intrusion under gender identity rules. At a rally in Pembroke in August 2025, Matt Alexander told parents, “This wasn’t a requirement to not discriminate. This was a requirement to celebrate and affirm”². The family’s refusal resulted in severe financial hardship; they were forced to sell their home to avoid foreclosure and are now pursuing legal action through the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, filing a human rights complaint against the school board for religious discrimination and a labour complaint against their union for failing to defend them³.

The policy framework in Ontario explains why their case became inevitable. Since 2009, Policy/Program Memorandum 119 has required all boards to adopt equity and inclusive education policies, explicitly naming sexual orientation and gender identity⁴. In 2012, the Education Act was amended to oblige schools to discipline homophobic and transphobic bullying with suspension or expulsion⁵. In 2015, the Wynne government introduced a revised sex-education curriculum, explicitly teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity across multiple grade levels. Although briefly rolled back in 2018, a revised 2019 framework retained much of this content, allowing only limited parental opt-outs⁶. The Accepting Schools Act of 2012 further mandated Gay–Straight Alliances in all publicly funded schools, Catholic or public, embedding advocacy around sexual and gender identities into the life of schools⁷.

Local boards and implementation went still further. The Toronto District School Board and the Avon Maitland District School Board established guidelines requiring staff to use preferred pronouns, to protect the confidentiality of disclosures, and to provide washroom and changing-room access according to gender identity⁸. In September 2022, the Renfrew County District School Board itself issued Gender Identity and Gender Expression Guidelines, mandating affirmation in athletics, field trips, and teaching practice⁹.

Oversight and professional regulation reinforce these expectations. The Ontario College of Teachers applies the Ontario Human Rights Code to all licensed teachers, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. In 2018, the College introduced gender-inclusive communication policies, including non-binary options on forms¹⁰. The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario has declared that “no one’s gender identity should be up for debate,” insisting on inclusive washrooms, pronoun recognition, and curriculum content¹¹. Yet in the Alexanders’ case, neither the College nor the union offered comment or support, leaving them isolated in the face of dismissal and compelled to seek redress in law.

The silence of institutions contrasts with their public rhetoric of inclusion and equity. The RCDSB has never publicly explained or defended its dismissal of the Alexanders, while the regulatory and union structures that champion affirmation failed to uphold conscience. The Alexanders’ case thus illustrates the trajectory of Ontario’s educational policy: what began as protection from bullying has developed into compulsory celebration. Where teachers resist on grounds of conscience or faith, the consequence is loss of employment and livelihood.

Conscience in Catholic teaching sheds light on the Alexanders’ resistance. Pope Leo XIII taught that “the divine and natural law is the rule and measure of all education” and that it is not lawful for the State to override the rights of conscience in parents and teachers (Libertas, 1888)¹². Pius XI, in Divini Illius Magistri, condemned any system of education that arrogates to the State the right to mould the souls of children against the convictions of the family and Church, insisting that “it is necessary to preserve the inviolable rights of the Christian conscience”¹³. The Alexanders’ dismissal for refusing to endorse falsehoods about the human person is precisely the kind of coercion these encyclicals warned against.

The rights of parents in education are not merely a Catholic claim, but recognised in international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares in Article 26(3) that “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”¹⁴. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights further requires States to respect the liberty of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their convictions¹⁵. By compelling teachers to indoctrinate children against their conscience and by depriving parents of the right to shield their children from ideological coercion, Ontario’s education system violates not only the Catholic faith but also the very human rights instruments it claims to uphold.

The ideological character of celebration goes beyond tolerance. What the Alexanders refused was not the prohibition of bullying, which they accepted as common sense, but the compulsory affirmation of practices and lifestyles they believed contrary to natural law and divine revelation. Catholic teaching distinguishes between respect for persons and the endorsement of error. As St Augustine observed, “We must hate the sin, but love the sinner” (Letter 211)¹⁶. The modern school system has inverted this principle, making affirmation of the sin a condition for showing respect to the sinner.

The broader lesson for Catholics is clear. Where civil authorities attempt to compel what is against conscience, Christians are bound to resist, even at personal cost. The Alexanders have provided a witness to this principle, standing firm against coercion. Their ordeal is a reminder that fidelity to truth will increasingly require sacrifice in societies where error has become law. The challenge for the Church is to support families like theirs, to defend the rights of parents and teachers, and to proclaim once again that education belongs first to the family and ultimately to God, not to the State. 🔝

¹ Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, The Alexander Family: Punished for Standing by Their Beliefs (October 2023).
² Clare Marie Merkowsky, “Canadian teacher exposes school board’s LGBT indoctrination of young children,” LifeSiteNews, August 28, 2025.
³ Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, case summary (2023–25).
⁴ Ontario Ministry of Education, Policy/Program Memorandum No. 119: Developing and Implementing Equity and Inclusive Education Policies in Ontario Schools (2009).
⁵ Education Act, RSO 1990, c. E.2, amendments 2012, s. 301.
⁶ Ontario sex education curriculum controversy, Wikipedia summary (accessed August 2025).
⁷ Accepting Schools Act, 2012, S.O. 2012, c. 5, s. 9.
⁸ Toronto District School Board, Accommodation Guidelines for Transgender and Gender Diverse Students and Staff (2017); Avon Maitland DSB, Administrative Procedure 398: Transgender Students and Staff (2020).
⁹ Renfrew County District School Board, Gender Identity and Gender Expression Guideline (September 2022).
¹⁰ Ontario College of Teachers, “College Advances Diversity with New Policy,” OCT announcement (2018).
¹¹ Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, Policy Statements and Media Releases (2019–2023).
¹² Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum (1888), §§17–20.
¹³ Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (1929), §§35–45.
¹⁴ United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 26(3).
¹⁵ United Nations, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), Article 13(3).
¹⁶ St Augustine, Letter 211, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. 1.