L.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1622 (CanLII)
Even in BC, you can still use cases from other provinces in your advocacy.
School districts will always want to blame the parent for something when a human rights complaint has been filed. The duty to accommodate is a two-party process and so there are certain responsibilities on both sides. However. In education, we aren’t talking about an adult in an employment situation. The service being provided in an education situation is to a child. School districts even blame the child for how they participate in the duty to accommodate. (Insert eye roll). It’s ridiculous. They love to blame the child for not advocating. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
But in this case what is important is that it doesn’t matter what the parent does or does not do, the school STILL must provide reasonable accommodations up to the point of undue hardship to a child.
If you want more information on the expectations of student advocacy, you can read my blog Self-Advocacy and Victim Blaming.
Hint: “children who require accommodation in their school are in a different situation than adults seeking accommodation. Though they have a role to play in the process, that role will be age and ability-specific, and the burden cannot be on a child to identify and bring forward the facts necessary for their accommodation.“
A key finding in this case that is linked above as you will see is: 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.“
From the case:
[77] The Interim Decision sets out my reasons for issuing an order with respect to the first two points, as follows:
(a) School boards have an obligation under the Code to accommodate their students with disabilities to the point of undue hardship, regardless of whether the students are receiving any medical treatment in the community or not;
(b) School boards cannot order or demand of parents to place their children into residential psychiatric treatment programs and cannot deny or withhold accommodations to the point of undue hardship on the grounds that the student should be in such a program. While I have no evidence to show that this was the case here, that does not alter the principle;
(c) School boards have an obligation under the Education Act to provide appropriate special education placements, programs and services to their exceptional students. Parental conduct or lack of parental authority cannot be used as a justification for not meeting an exceptional student’s needs; and
(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.