There is a way to keep your child’s information private as you go through the BC Human Rights Tribunal process (BC HRT). If you want to request that something specific happen you can email your case manager and they may tell you that you need to submit an application or they may be able to just respond to your request in the email. If you do send a request you must cc: the school districts in your email. Not every application that you submit will have a public decision, but it’s possible that a decision regarding your process/request could be posted on their website. These applications are things like amending your complaint, joining complaints if you file a family status complaint connected to yourself, fast-tracking, etc.
You can apply for your case to be anonymized. The the BC HRT will anonymize a minors human rights complaint automatically anyways as it is part of their rules, but it is always good to communicate your wishes.
Page 3 of their RULES book
Complaints about minors
(7) In an application to limit public disclosure of information that would identify a minor, the
tribunal will presume that the minor’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in access
to the tribunal’s proceedings.
Or if you specifically don’t want the district to be anonymized, it’s good to put this in the application and explain why it is in the public interest for them to be identified. (See below for case example) HINT: The school districts REALLY don’t like to be named. You can use it to you advantage to put pressure on a settlement.
The BC HRT doesn’t really advertise this, but if you don’t want to settle and you want a hearing, you can also apply for a “CLOSED” hearing so that no one from the public attends.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I am going to write a blog on this specific topic, but I just want to drop some info. If the school districts lawyers are trying to scare you by saying they are going to force your child to testify and be a witness at the hearing – NICE TRY. Just because they may want them on the witness list, doesn’t mean they are going to get it. The BC HRT makes all of their decisions in the best interest of the child. But the respondents LOVE to dangle this threat as a way to send your protective parent instincts into overdrive. But, more on this later.
How you do either of these options (anonymization and closed hearing) is by filing out an application.
Go to the FORMS page on the BC HRT website.
You will be filling out a 7.1 GENERAL APPLICATION.
You will be asking to anonymize your child’s name. You don’t need to anonymize the districts name, but they will most likely fight for their name to be anonymized too. Their argument is often that it may expose the identity of the child. You can argue back. There are cases where the identity of the child is anonymized and the district is not. Or if that is not something you wish for, you can agree to anonymize the district as well.
Read everything on the form. There is a process that you have to go through before you submit it. You need to contact the school district lawyers and ask them if they agree. They will have to provide you with “their position” on your application. When you email them, I suggest you give them a deadline. Ask them to respond to you within 5 business days.
This is the same form you can ask for a closed hearing. Just tick off OTHER and write “closed hearing” on the PURPOSE OF APPLICATION page. They give you space to answer their questions, but you can always just write “see attached” and then type up your answers. You can submit up to 10 pages.
REMEMBER: They are always going to analyze you through a cost-risk lens. If you become too expensive, they are going to be more encouraged to settle with you. It costs them big money to respond to applications. So if your mediation meeting fails, become expensive.
Here is a list of some decisions around anonymization.
The Student (by the parent) v. The School District, 2025 BCHRT 17
[8] Rule 5(7) presumes that a minor’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in accessing the Tribunal’s proceedings. As such, it is appropriate to limit publication of information that could identify the Student in connection with this complaint.
Mother A obo Child B v. School District C, 2015 BCHRT 64
[21] Rule 5(7) establishes a presumption respecting minors for good reason. Children are vulnerable, in some cases fragile, and those with disabilities even more so. It is difficult enough growing up in the face of existing peer pressure without having the additional burden of adult-driven issues being superimposed in a public way in their formative years. Moreover, these issues may not be readily understood by other children and used as a tool of ridicule and hurt. While some public exposure is inevitable, broad public exposure through unrestricted publication is neither necessary nor in the child’s best interests. At this stage of the proceedings, I find that the privacy interests of Child B outweigh the interests of the public and Child B’s identity and that of Mother A shall be anonymized.
[27] I note that Mother A alleges that the complaint and future outcome are specific to the policies and practices of this particular district. Further, she says that understanding which district is involved may be important for the public, or future complainants in School District C or other districts. I find that school districts are large public institutions that touch a broad spectrum of the public. The reasons advanced by Mother A for identifying School District C reflect a legitimacy and the sentiment found in para. 11 of the School District 61 case cited above. In the circumstances as they currently stand, I find that there is nothing that outweighs the public’s interest in knowing the identity of School District C and the open court principle.
[28] Therefore, I am prepared to grant School District C the requested anonymization for the purposes of only this decision. Unless a further order of the Tribunal is obtained, School District C shall be identified in all subsequent proceedings. If the Respondent School District C finds unique circumstances that weigh in favour of its anonymization, it may reapply for such an order.
Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another, 2024 BCHRT 150
In this case the mother and child wanted to be named. The school did not want to be named. Child was anonymized until she is an adult and then can apply to have her name added. School lost their application and the decision was to name them.
(29) I appreciate that naming the School could make it easier for motivated and diligent people to identify the people who were involved in the events of this complaint. In that respect, my order will not perfectly protect the people involved. However, I find that – unlike the individual educators and staff involved – there is a specific public interest in the identity of the School as a publicly funded institution serving the public: A obo B v. School District 61, 2014 BCHRT 105 at para. 11. I am not persuaded that this public interest is outweighed by the potential that some of the educators may then be identified. There have already been a number of complaints and proceedings involving the educators and staff, and Mrs. Ehmke points out that many people within the community already know about the complaint.
(30) I deny the application to limit publication of the name of the School.
To search up more decisions, here are instructions on how to use CanLii.
