Accommodations should be individualized to the person. It is not a one-size-fits-all.
Child (by Parents) v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2025 BCHRT 85
[71] While the School Board clearly made efforts to accommodate the Child’s disabilities, I am not persuaded on the evidence before me that they could not have reasonably done more to assist the Child in overcoming the barriers they faced at school. While the School Board says that the IEPs were formulated in line with what was provincially recognized, accommodation must be done on a case-by-case basis. It is not one-size-fits-all: James and Rowland v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR1120, 2023 BCHRT 220 at para. 50. It may be that it would have been undue hardship to have implemented the Colorado recommendations and the recommendations from the other reports, however, I do not have that evidence before me on this application. Further, my conclusion is supported by the evidence that the Parents had to intervene substantially in the Child’s education to keep them at grade level. It appears from the materials before me that at least some of the supports the Parents provided to the Child were in line with the recommendations contained in the reports—i.e. the recommendations that the Child alleges were not implemented at the School.
******
The school district tried to defend itself by saying…
******
[68] The School Board admits that certain of the recommendations contained in the psychoeducational assessment and other medical reports were not included in the Child’s IEPs. However, the School Board says that the IEPs developed for the Child “are consistent with the recognized supports for students with a learning disability like dyslexia within British Columbia.” They say that many of the recommendations from the psychoeducational assessment report in particular were specific to programs available in Colorado, not in BC. They say the IEPs that have been developed for the Child were consistent with the Child’s Ministry of Education designation and “the information regarding [the Child’s] learning needs”, including the provision of a learner support teacher as well as modifications implemented by the classroom teacher. They note that the Child’s progress reports indicate that they have progressed “well” and “overall at grade level”.
*****
We already know that if parents can’t use the fact that their kids are not at grade level as evidence of lack of accommodations, school can’t use grade level to prove they have provided accommodation. Here is the blog on GRADES.
The part of the complaint that proceeded to a hearing is the part on the IEP.
********
[68] The School Board admits that certain of the recommendations contained in the psychoeducational assessment and other medical reports were not included in the Child’s IEPs. However, the School Board says that the IEPs developed for the Child “are consistent with the recognized supports for students with a learning disability like dyslexia within British Columbia.” They say that many of the recommendations from the psychoeducational assessment report in particular were specific to programs available in Colorado, not in BC. They say the IEPs that have been developed for the Child were consistent with the Child’s Ministry of Education designation and “the information regarding [the Child’s] learning needs”, including the provision of a learner support teacher as well as modifications implemented by the classroom teacher. They note that the Child’s progress reports indicate that they have progressed “well” and “overall at grade level”.
[69] As I understand it, the School Board accepts it had a duty to accommodate and adopt appropriate IEPs, which were an accommodation for the Child’s disabilities. The issue before me on this application is whether the Board is reasonably certain to establish at a hearing that it met with the duty to accommodate in formulating the IEPs as they did.
[70] The School Board was required to take all reasonable and practical steps to remove disability-related barriers that their students face at school: Mooreat para. 49. For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied on the materials before me that the School Board is reasonably certain to establish that it met the duty to accommodate the Child.
*******
In Manitoba a case was dismissed as they felt,
Wells v. Manitoba (Human Rights Commission) et al., 2025 MBKB 86
[29] After considering all the evidence in relation to the Complaint, the Investigator concluded that the Board offered reasonable accommodation:
… the evidentiary record suggests that the school provided him with extensive supports, adaptations and programming based on the medical documentation it received, and its own observations of [her] son. The evidence shows that the school often already had supports in place that met or addressed some recommendations in new reports it received. While it may not have been able to implement every individual recommendation immediately or at all time, the school made a concerted effort to update and follow the son’s educational plan as per the extensive and changing recommendation made by numerous different clinicians and healthcare professionals through the son’s schooling. The school must be given some discretion with respect to the specific programming and supports it provided to its students based on medical documentation and ongoing assessments. As subject matter experts in delivering education, it appears that the school would be in the best position to determine how to provide academic accommodation to students in accordance with its assessments and available medical documentations.
*******
As always I encourage you to read the case in full.
***** Accommodations are not one-size-fits-all and neither are complaints. All of the details of the person’s case is different. No complaint is exactly the same. Cases will be similar in some aspects and they will be different. They give us a peak into how tribunals are likely to make decisions. HOWEVER, there is no guarantee either way. Your complaint may be different and so these cases don’t apply. Tribunal will look at the evidence before them and make their decisions on relevant case law and the context and details of each case, etc and apply the law. Even lawyers can’t make you promises.
But if you have a school saying this is a standard accommodation and you shouldn’t expect any more….cough… umm sorry school. Parents can expect individualized accommodations designed for THEIR child in mind to remove their barriers. Not the barriers that Frank has, who lives down the street.