** This page is currently a work in progress. (Summer 2026) More to come.
Alberta
JF obo DF v Calgary Board of Education, 2026 AHRC 68
7] The complainant was seven years old at the time the Complaint was filed and has mental and physical disabilities including complex needs stemming from severe Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) which impairs and affects his articulation, receptive and expressive language skills, ability to decode words, comprehension of written text, development of reading skills, number memory, auditory reasoning, mathematical understanding, and fine motor skills. The Complaint states that the pervasive impact of CAS on DF’s academic performance necessitates specialized instruction and support to ensure he can access, and meaningfully engage with, the curriculum.
********
LD obo BGD v Board of Trustees of Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School Division, 2026 AHRC 7
[28] Once the respondent was aware of the complainant’s needs, her preferred accommodation was provided. The failure to allow the potty to be used at school earlier was due to miscommunication, not the respondent’s failure to accommodate. There is no information to support that the complainant had not been reasonably accommodated.
********
RS obo CS v Edmonton School Division, 2024 AHRC 106
[2] The complainant, CS, is a minor student with multiple mental and physical disabilities. He needed accommodations to allow him access to general education. The respondent school board, the Board of Trustees Edmonton School Division, provided extensive accommodations. However, no matter how much the respondent did to accommodate the complainant’s disabilities, his parents were never satisfied.
The complaint was dismissed. There are a lot of items and different issues in this case; I do encourage you to read it in full.
*********
Parents Take Ministry to Court – WIN – Equitable Education
Let me hook you in with this line:
[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.
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES MUST BE APPLIED IN TIMES OF LABOUR OR RESOURCE SHORTAGES.
**********