A Catholic culture on the ropes. Who are legitimate candidates in the race for education trustee?

Joe Volpe October 8, 2026

TORONTO – Not everyone who wants to be trustee has the right to solicit your vote before you place your X beside their name. This is not a simple definition of democratic rights nor an issue of supporting someone on the left or right of the political spectrum. Neither is it about orthodoxy, progressivism, marginalization, redressing past injuries… the list is interminable.

Rather, it is about “membership in the organization” that is soliciting your vote. If you are not a member, you have no legal right to vote, much less to offer yourself as a candidate. It is a fact grounded in Canadian history and law (the Constitution).

To start, school boards, at least the Catholic ones, are not creatures of the Provincial Government. They preceded the formation of provinces.

Had it not been for their consent and cooperation there would have been no Act of Union in 1841 (joining what is now Ontario and Quebec) and no Confederation in 1867.

In both instances the support of the “local” Catholic boards of education was a sine qua non to any political colonial re-organization and legitimacy in Upper Canada (Ontario), a recognition then extended to the English Protestants in Lower Canada (Quebec) as part of the Great Compromise to Union.

Section 93 of the Constitution Act (initially the BNA Act) recognized the rights of Catholics to their own schools, to their own governance structure and, since their budgets were sourced from taxes on properties owned by Catholics, to their own financing. Local and provincial governments assessed and collected taxes on those properties and transferred them to Catholic boards of education.

It made sense then, as now, to restrict the vote and the candidacy to the Board. Only those who could prove their affiliation through attestation by a parish priest and by residency through a local assessment roll kept in the [local] municipality qualify. In other words, it is illogical to involuntarily concede rights to one who is not a member of [the] faith group and/or who does not live in the municipality in which he/she seeks office.

There are safeguards. The Municipal Elections Act,1996, and the Education Act require documentary proof of compliance by all candidates. The minister for Federal citizenship legislation is the only authority to issue documents verifying eligibility for citizenship.

Yet, in far too many cases, aggressive candidates push their way past municipal clerks responsible for checking the documents by simply providing a signed an affidavit that they comply.

Who checks? For Catholic Boards, the Returning Officer, as per the Education Act, is none other than the Director of Education for the Board.

One does not have to travel far to uncover failings. Over the Covid period Corriere’s researchers discovered several (one is too many) transgressions by “opportunistic candidates with too much time on their hands”. Provincially appointed supervisors don’t seem to have had much of an impact.

Voters would be well advised to ask for proof of compliance. That should not be much to ask. Try driving without licence registration, ownership and insurance.

More Articles by the Same Author: