This case is from 2013 and has been cited in other education cases. There are a few things that stick out to me from this case.
R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1436
“Fierce Advocacy”
Can the school use your advocacy against you?
No.
*********
(d) I agree with the decision in R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, (R.B./Keewatin) 2013 HRTO 1436, an HRTO decision cited by both parties in this case, at para 265, that a parent’s “fierce advocacy” for his or her child must not and cannot prevent a school board from accommodating the child’s needs to the point of undue hardship.
********
BUT….. they can ban you from the school if they feel your communication is threatening to the staff or you are interfering with the school. They can file a Section 177 against you. Even if they do that, while you are banned, they still need to accommodate your child to the point of undue hardship.
How can they do that?
The School Act gives them that power.
School Act
Maintenance of order
177 (1)A person must not disturb or interrupt the proceedings of a school or an official school function.
(2)A person who is directed to leave the land or premises of a school by a principal, vice principal, director of instruction or a person authorized by the board to make that direction
(a)must immediately leave the land and premises, and
(b)must not enter on the land and premises again except with prior approval from the principal, vice principal, director of instruction or a person who is authorized by the board to give that approval.
(3)A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence.
(4)A principal, vice principal or director of instruction of a school or a person authorized by the board may, in order to restore order on school premises, require adequate assistance from a peace officer.
Here are the GUIDELINES around this.
********
Here is what the tribunal had to say about their adversarial relationship.
*******
[265] Before concluding this Decision, it is important to make one final comment. S.F. is a fierce advocate for her son. When she believed his needs were being met in SK and Grade 1, there were no significant issues between her and the school. When R.B.’s EA support was dramatically reduced at the beginning of Grade 2, she disagreed and commenced on a path to change that. The school responded negatively to her advocacy. At the end of November 2011, the Principal stopped all communication between S.F. and the Grade 2 teacher. In December 2011, the respondent banned S.F. from the school because of the actions of her spouse. From that point on, S.F. was unable to sit down with the teaching staff to discuss R.B.’s needs and how to meet them. The teaching staff developed the view that S.F. was a problem. For example, when S.F. raised concerns at the beginning of Grade 3, the teacher’s first response was to contact her union. The more S.F. was shut down, the more she spiralled out of control. None of this is to excuse her conduct, but it is the context in which she acted. It is a context that cannot be ignored.
[266] In making this finding I am mindful of the impact of these events on the teaching staff. However, at the end of the day, R.B. was denied meaningful access to the education provided to students in Ontario because of the respondent’s relationship with his mother and not because the respondent was unable to meet his needs. This is not an appropriate basis to justify the discrimination.
********
From reading this decision paragraphs 255 -267, I think the school was brutal with her and I am so glad she took this all the way to hearing to have it documented and a decision that other parents can use in their own advocacy.
So they made the following orders and one of the orders was for a mediator
*********
[281] The Tribunal orders the following;
a. Payment by the respondent in the amount of $35,000.00 as monetary compensation for the injury to the applicant’s dignity, feelings and self-respect;
b. R.B. will return to school in the 2013/2014 school year with a full-time shared EA in the classroom, speech/language support for 30 minutes per week and an appropriate behaviour management plan that has been agreed to by S.F. in consultation with R.B.’s treating specialists.
c. S.F. is entitled to fully participate in the IPRC review meeting for the 2013/2014 school year and the development of R.B.’s IEP for this year;
d. The trespass notice and communication ban issued in December 2011 is lifted.
[283] As I am sure is clear from this Decision, the relationship between the parties has been severely compromised. I am very concerned about R.B. returning to school under these circumstances. As I stated in my Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 130, I was unsure how the litigation process and my final decision was going to assist the parties in repairing their relationship. For this reason, I am ordering the respondent to retain a third party facilitator/mediator acceptable to the applicant to facilitate the reparation of S.F.’s relationship with the school and its staff. This order, made under section 45.2(3) of the Code, is necessary to ensure future compliance with the non-compensatory orders above. That person must be on retainer by the respondent for the 2013/2014 school year. In the event there are difficulties between S.F. and the school during this time, they will be mediated by the third party facilitator/mediator. The costs of this person must be paid by the respondent.
*******
Schools are going to be judged on if their decisions are reasonable. They have to accommodate your child regardless of your involvement.
If you are experiencing any of these challenges, here is a case that you may be able to use to assist you. It is surprising to me how any eductors are unaware of their human right obligations.
Thanks S.F!!