'Lolita Line' school bus driver is not a victim of anti-trans discrimination - National Post

A school bus driver who wore a schoolgirl’s costume while driving a vehicle with a “Lolita’s Line” sign in the window was filmed by parents in 2025. The event has spawned a human rights complaint by the driver against the bus line and the York Catholic school board. Photo by v.the_light TT/InstagramArticle contentIn 2025, a school bus driver serving Vaughan, Ont., placed a placard with the words “Lolita Line” in the windshield and wore a pink mini-skirt and over-the-knee nylons to pick up kids. Vigilant parents caught it on film and the driver was promptly dismissed. This, it turns out, wasn’t the end of the story: now, the driver, self-described as a “transgender woman,” is pursuing a human rights complaint — showing, once again, just how backwards that system is.

The driver, identifiable only as L.Z., alleges that the York Catholic District School Board and employer Landmark Bus Lines committed “discrimination with respect to employment because of ethnic origin, gender identity, and sex.” The York Catholic District School Board confirmed on Tuesday that this complaint stemmed from the events above.

Columnist Jesse Kline keeps you up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada. Friday mornings.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Channel Israel will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

The human rights complaint would have proceeded in secret were it not for L.Z.’s insistence on securing a publication ban, which was granted on Oct. 13. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario does not post upcoming hearings online, unlike its more transparent cousins in B.C., Alberta and Manitoba, so there would have been no realistic way for the public to know that it was on the docket.

The tribunal did, however, publish its decision to grant a publication ban protecting L.Z.’s identity on Oct. 23. According to the decision, L.Z. wanted a publication ban because “she is a transgender woman” and because the events at the heart of the complaint “have garnered negative media attention.”

“The applicant has faced threats to her safety and discriminatory labels due to transphobic stereotypes,” adds the decision.

It’s unclear whether this individual is mentally ill, simply engaging in a stunt to take advantage of an overzealous, unaccountable human rights system, or something else altogether. No rational adult would show up to a job with proximity to kids in a skimpy costume and a reference to a novel about the sexual abuse of a child by a middle-aged man … and then revive the controversy by engaging in lawfare.

The decision to protect L.Z.’s case with a publication ban came down to the privacy of the individual, which, in the tribunal’s view, outweighed the “public interest in a transparent human rights process.”

“The applicant argues that the only thing that has kept her safe is that her name and personal details have not been revealed,” reads the decision. “The applicant states that the events in the Application have been publicized in a manner that described her as a danger to the public because of her gender identity and negative stereotypes that have been associated with her identity.

“In addition, the applicant submits that she would be at risk of physical harm, intimidation, and harassment based on the commentary on social media and news outlets, if her identity and personal information are made public.”