A panel of three judges in the Divisional Court has reserved their decision, following a judicial review hearing on Monday.
It was between the Hastings Prince Edward District School Board and North Prince Edward Trustee Rachel Prinzen.
Prinzen represents the following schools in northern Prince Edward County.
- CML Snider School
- Kente Public School
- Massassaga-Rednersville Public School
- Sophiasburgh Central School
Prinzen has been barred twice from meetings/committee meetings, after the board of trustees announced she violated the Trustee Code of Conduct.
It stems from a “whistleblower submission” she made to the Minister of Education, two parliamentary assistants to the ministry, along with local MPPs Ric Bresee (Hastings Lennox and Addington) and then MPP Todd Smith (Bay of Quinte).
It is time to take a look back and see how we got to this point.
NOVEMBER 2024 – Trustee Prizen received a 90-day barring from meetings and board committees, after the board of trustees claimed she violated the HPEDSB Code of Conduct STORY HERE.
Then Board Chair Binder announced the sanctions approved by the board of trustees.
” … that Trustee Prinzen be barred from attending all or part of a meeting of the board, or a committee thereof and from sitting on one or more boards or committees commencing January 6, 2025 for a period of 90 days.”
FEBRUARY 2025 – A divisional court granted a temporary “stay” for the trustee to rejoin the Hastings Prince Edward District School Board STORY HERE . The stay order for Prinzen to rejoin the board served as a pause of the sanctions, not a reversal/approval of them.
MAY 2025 – Trustee Rachel Prinzen is once again sanctioned by the board of trustees, regarding code of conduct and breach of confidentiality issues – STORY HERE
Board Chair Kari Kramp announced the sanctions:
“The HPEDSB trustees have found that Trustee Rachel Prinzen has breached the Members Code of Conduct, as outlined in the board motion, Section 5 – Respect for Confidentiality.”
JUNE 2025 – At a meeting to the HPEDSB Board of Trustees, it was announced that as of that meeting, more than $110,000 had been spent in legal fees in the battle against Trustee Prinzen STORY HERE.
AUGUST 2025 – Prinzen was again allowed at public meetings. STORY HERE. Prinzen did so by appealing to the divisional court.
So, that brings us to this week.
There was a panel of judges, the Honorable Justices Schreck, Backhouse, and Fregeau.
In opening submissions, HPEDSB Legal Representative Jessica Koper (Shibley Righton LLP) made a request to have the entire hearing done in-camera (no outside viewing or hearing), pointing to reputational harm for HPEDSB and particular staff mentioned in the more than 1,700-page legal document.
The panel of judges rejected the request, under the “Open Court Principle”, however, they did instruct Prinzen to only point out redacted information, not discuss it aloud.
Prinzen, who self-represented, painted a picture of an effort to discredit her, smear her reputation, and have her “stop asking questions.”
A nurse by trade, says she spent a lot of time training for her new role as a trustee for north Prince Edward County.
She says she began to have concerns about board governance, finances, minute taking, executive compensation (STORY HERE) and more.
Prinzen told the judges she exhausted internal avenues to address concerns and felt she had a duty to take them further.
She contacted the Minister of Education but did not try to hide it, telling other trustees of her actions.
The panel asked why she also sent those concerns to a number of MPPs, along with the then Education Minister Steven Lecce.
Prinzen says she also wrote to the parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Education, along with local MPPs Ric Bresee and Todd Smith.
She says she felt they had a right to know what was going on with a board in their area and rightly or wrongly, thought it was the best course to have her concerns heard.
As stated earlier in the story, there were two complaints made to an external integrity commissioner, however, both reports from the IC’s officer were redacted.
Prinzen wants both those reports public.
She believed many members of the board looked to discredit her and she pointed to a sworn affidavit from fellow Trustee (Sidney/Frankford) Ernie Parsons.
(excerpts of sworn affidavit below)
“At the conclusions of a public board meeting in April of 2024, I was approached by (at the time) Chair Binder and Vice Chair Robertson who stated to me that “we need to do something for the director.” They stated that Trustee Prinzen was causing the Director of Education a great deal of stress, and we need to come up with a complaint against her, that will cause her (Prinzen) to be suspended and to lose her honorarium for several months. This conversation was reasonably short, as I gave no indication of wishing to participate. I have now reason to believe that this was the start of the campaign to silence Trustee Prinzen.”
“In the matter of the second suspension, I believe the entire process utilized by the trustees, was designed to ensure a finding of guilt. The defendant was not permitted to present her case and was not entitled to speak.”
“It is my perception that the Hastings Prince Edward District School Board has weaponized the code of conduct and has utilized it to resolve personality conflicts within the board.”
Prinzen also expressed that she was elected to represent Prince Edward Collegiate Institute, the secondary school in Picton, but she says she has been barred from doing that for no reason.
“The website not listing PECI as one of my schools is evidence of that.”
She also alleged issues with procedural fairness, heavy handedness, Charter of Rights violations, accountability, and transparency.
The HPEDSB representative Jessica Koper says there was no bias or impartiality.
She added that there was also no merit to her technical arguments with respect to timing and jurisdiction.
“This is one trustee on a board of ten who has no individual authority to act in law, in her capacity as a trustee. Who refuses to take responsibility for her actions in disclosing highly confidential information, consisting of privileged, in-camera and personal information of employees of the board, including making defamatory allegations against the Director of Education.”
“This is an applicant who takes the position that the rules, including the application’s statutory obligations as a trustee, do not apply to the applicant, including the rules and orders of this court.”
The lawyer said that in both code of conduct proceedings the board followed the process they put in place, adding the board retained independent third-party investigators to investigate the complaints.
She added the trustees did not come by their decisions lightly, discussing the complaints in-camera for several hours, adding that it is disingenuous for Trustee Prinzen to allege the other trustees did not deliberate.
“There was no personal gain for me to be a whistleblower. It has been ‘weighty’ on me,” stated Prinzen.
She has currently served about 20 per cent of her barring of 180 days.
Both Prinzen and the HPEDSB are seeking, among other things, financial compensation in the battle.
The judges have reserved their decision.
