This is a new education case that was posted on June 16th, 2026. This is from Alberta. While it is not binding in BC because it is from a different province, cases from other provinces are still influential and are used by human rights tribunal decision makers to help them interpret and apply human rights law to the case they have in front of them.
JF obo DF v Calgary Board of Education, 2026 AHRC 68
There are some paragraphs in this case that succinctly outline the duty to accommodate. As always I recommend people read the case in full. Lots of details in there about the specific circumstances of the case.
Duty to Accommodate
[26] The starting point for an analysis of accommodation is found in Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v Renaud,[8] where the Supreme Court of Canada described accommodation as a “multi-party” process:
The search for accommodation is a multi-party inquiry. Along with the employer and the union, there is also a duty on the complainant to assist in securing an appropriate accommodation…
To facilitate the search for an accommodation, the complainant must do his or her part as well. Concomitant with a search for reasonable accommodation is a duty to facilitate the search for such an accommodation. Thus in determining whether the duty of accommodation has been fulfilled the conduct of the complainant must be considered.
…
The other aspect of this duty is the obligation to accept reasonable accommodation… The complainant cannot expect a perfect solution.
[27] The Alberta Court of Appeal stated in Callan v Suncor Inc.[9] that a complainant “is not entitled to dictate the accommodation he or she will accept” and that “[t]here is no duty of instant or perfect accommodation, only reasonable accommodation.”
[28] As Chief Oviatt stated in RS obo CS v Edmonton School Division (RS)[10] in respect to the above decisions:
These decisions bear on the Complaint. The respondent had a duty to arrange the complainant’s learning environment in a way that he could meaningfully access general education. It also had a duty to reasonably accommodate his disabilities to the point of undue hardship. Undue hardship is a high threshold that places a significant obligation on the service provider. At the same time, all parties must participate and cooperate in the accommodation process. Ultimately, the respondent was best suited to determine how to reasonably accommodate the complainant in light of its operations, and the complainant’s parents had a duty to accept reasonable, not perfect, accommodation.
[30] In RS, the parents raised complaints in respect to the provision of safe spaces, speech supports, and a one-on-one educational assistant, among other forms of requested accommodations; which are also issues raised in the Complaint. In RS, the Tribunal determined that:
The respondent was obliged to provide reasonable accommodation to the complainant to ensure he had access to general education, and it was entitled to inform its decision using all available information. The physician’s March 2022 medical recommendation was undoubtedly one piece of that information. So was the complainant’s behaviour at school and the respondent’s ability to meet the same objectives by using a classroom educational assistant who prioritized the complainant’s needs. The respondent was entitled to apply its expertise in education to determine a reasonable level of support.
[31] Finally, in Moore, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that “a margin of deference is…owed to governments and administrators in implementing [education policy].”
[35] There is no information in the records indicating the respondent has failed to provide the support indicated in the January 4, 2024, report to DF. Nor is there any information suggesting any available resources were withheld or that the respondent failed to reasonably accommodate DF considering its operations. Rather, the records include hundreds of pages of correspondence confirming accommodation steps being taken by the School, Student Support and Safety Plan documents from September and October 2024 setting out plans for how School staff will assist DF, and a Learning Plan from October 2024 derived from specialist recommendations.
[36] In more general terms, it is not sufficient for a complainant to demonstrate that there is a program or treatment that would be beneficial that has not been provided by a school for the Tribunal to find that a respondent school board has violated the Act. This would run counter to the principle outlined in Moore that school boards should be provided some deference in how they meet their obligation to provide meaningful access to education.[13]
[37] While it is clear from the materials that the complainant’s parents have been dissatisfied with the respondent’s accommodation efforts for some time, the record supports a robust, collaborative approach to accommodation that, although it could be argued was not perfect, reasonably accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship. Prior to the Complaint being filed, and afterwards, hundreds of emails were exchanged between the parties, and many meetings held, to develop, implement, and adapt accommodation plans for DF.
[38] Therefore, I find the Complaint has no reasonable prospect of success under section 4 of the Act.
*******
This complaint did not proceed to a hearing, and it was dismissed.
One of thing that I know is going to stick out to people reading this is “the respondent was best suited to determine how to reasonably accommodate the complainant in light of its operations, “
One thing to keep in mind is that resources must be distributed equitably. Whatever funding the government gets, and how they decide to organize their operations, are they doing so in an equitable manner?
Parents take Ministry to Court – Win for Equitable Education
[152] The Charter guarantees equal access to education for all students; the corollary effect is that that the equitable principle must be applied in times of labour or resource shortages. Here, what is apparent is that there was no consideration of how the reduced resources could be redistributed among all students. It was assumed that minimal disruption to the system would result by targeting only a sub-set of students – those who use an EA. However, this approach failed to consider that non-disabled students might suffer the least amount of harm since they do not have the same disadvantages as the students with disabilities and could adapt to an at-home learning program more easily, i.e., some non-disabled students switch to at-home learning to free up more resources for complex-needs students, or some of them, to attend school in-person even with the EAs presently unavailable.
There is a zone.
| Not getting access, barriers | Getting Access “Reasonable Accommodation” | Ideal Accommodation |
| Discrimination, cannot be justified. | Having “a ramp” – barrier is removed, it doesn’t promise a certain level of demonstrated ability via grades, just access. An opportunity. | Dismissed complaint if parents are expecting ideal and refuse to accept a reasonable accommodation. |
X by Y v. Board of Education of School District No. Z, 2024 BCHRT 72
[110] …. Not all negative experiences are discrimination. Even accepting that these incidents occurred, I did not hear evidence that could establish, on a balance of probabilities, that X’s disability was a factor in the conduct of the adults involved in these interactions.
[120] …..by reviewing the Diagnosis Report, developing an IEP, making various support people and strategies available that were incorporated into the classroom and outside, reviewing progress and changes, and adapting its approach in response……
Even if they can argue that their decisions aren’t discriminatory, you can still appeal a decision under Section 11 if you don’t agree with it and you think it is harming your child.
Not a single person has wide-sweeping rights under the Human Rights Code or the Charter. It is how your rights are defined, and that is defined in common law. Created by tribunal decisions and courts.
The duty to accommodate is our strongest form of advocacy, but there is a ceiling. It’s not unlimited. It can bring your child up to reasonable accommodations and barriers removed. It may not be the educational experience you wish for them. It doesn’t mean that your kids won’t experience negative experiences or that it won’t be hard. It doesn’t mean they wont experience harm from the education system as a whole.
We need to advocate through multiple pathways, have multiple teams of people in various roles and positions, all advocating for systemic changes. Laws need to be applied. It takes people and organizations to do that. Our education isn’t operating to the fullest it can in implementing human rights for children with disabilities. But it will only bring us up to “reasonable”. If we want our ideal, we need other forms of advocacy and relationship building to bring us the rest of the way.
Here are systemic blogs you may find interesting.
Advocating for Systemic Change
Complaints are the Ultimate Protest
Systemic Imperfection
Who does Society care about?
Why Can’t we Just Sue the Government?
Systemic Impacts of Scarcity in Education