BLOG

Posted on

Accommodations are individualized. It’s not a one-size-fits-all

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.

Posted on

Can the tribunal help with communication between a parent and the school? Yes!

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!!

Posted on

Grades – Not an Indication of Effective Accommodations, but Harm? Yes!

Tribunals have ruled on cases and have declared that grades are not an indication of whether accommodations are effective or not.

However, they have declared that poor grades could be an adverse effect.

**********

Child was below reading level and grade level.

X by Y v. Board of Education of School District No. Z, 2024 BCHRT 72 

[137]      Y expressed concern that the District would again advance X to the next grade when his reading was still not at grade level. I appreciate Y’s concerns about X not being at the same level as many of his peers. Yet as noted in Moore at paras. 35-36,

[…] As with many public services, educational policies often contemplate that students will achieve certain results.  But the fact that a particular student has not achieved a given result does not end the inquiry.  In some cases, the government may well have done what was necessary to give the student access to the service, yet the hoped-for results did not follow. Moreover, policy documents tend to be aspirational in nature, and may not reflect realistic objectives.  A margin of deference is, as a result, owed to governments and administrators in implementing these broad, aspirational policies. 

But if the evidence demonstrates that the government failed to deliver the mandate and objectives of public education such that a given student was denied meaningful access to the service based on a protected ground, this will justify a finding of prima facie discrimination.

[138]      Ultimately, X’s report card for the end of grade 3 showed that he had “made satisfactory progress in all areas of the curriculum”. It set out areas for continued work over the summer. On the whole, the District has satisfied me on a balance of probabilities that it discharged its duty to accommodate X by providing him with a network of support people; learning support and behavioural support to ensure he continued to develop skills; learning tools and strategies; behavioural tools and strategies; which all culminated in providing meaningful access to educational services. As Y raised concerns and as the District identified X’s needs changing, the District adapted the accommodations in response. While X may have been behind some or even many of his peers academically in some areas, he did make ongoing progress in building skills and tools. While he may not have met or exceeded the academic targets Y expected or hoped, the District reasonably accommodated X to provide him with meaningful access to the education services it provides.

[141]      I acknowledge that X continued to struggle with not finding school a happy place to be and that a consequence of this has been persistent challenges for Y in getting X to attend. I acknowledge that X continues to not read at grade level. However, the District has not withdrawn, but rather has expanded, diversified, layered and adapted the accommodations it has had in place for X. In some aspects, these have “worked”, as they have allowed X to progress toward learning and behavioural goals, as Y herself acknowledged in her evidence. In others they have not, as X remains reluctant on some days to attend school at all. Y acknowledged at several points in her evidence that the District “threw everything at” the situation, giving layers of accommodations and adapting them to X’s needs.

[142]      Y has said that the learning support provided throughout X’s education has not been enough for X to “reach the same level as his peers or possibly excel”. The District’s obligation is reasonable not perfect accommodation. As I have said above, reasonable accommodation is not necessarily measured by whether a student is meeting or exceeding certain standardized learning goals but rather by whether barriers have been removed to provide meaningful access to education.

**********

Next case

A decline in grades doesn’t automatically trigger the duty to inquire – although it is an adverse impact.

Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237

[75]           The “duty to inquire” is a human rights obligation which arises where the student is facing some adverse impact in their education – ie. discipline, poor grades, lack of meaningful access – and the school is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that a student’s disability may be a factor in that impact: eg. Martin v. Carter Chevrolet Oldsmobile, 2001 BCHRT 37 at para. 29; Aydogmus v. York University, 2021 HRTO 176 at para. 59. The purpose of this inquiry is to identify and remove disability-related barriers to a successful education, likely through the process of accommodation. 

[77]           In light of my findings above, I am not persuaded that the District’s duty to inquire and/or accommodate were triggered when it placed the Student in Language 10. Most critically, I have not accepted that Language 10 was an inappropriate placement for the Student. In addition, the Student had performed well in school and was – admirably – preparing to challenge herself academically by applying for enriched courses. There was no prior history of academic accommodations or modifications. In this situation, the District did not have reason to believe that placing the Student in Language 10 would adversely impact her. Nor do I find that the inquiry should have been triggered by the drop in the Student’s grades in the second term. As Teacher X explained, this is when the material got harder. The Student was still passing. Even the Parent did not conclude, based on these grades alone, that the Language class was the cause of the Student’s poor mental health. Rather, the evidence supports that the class was challenging but within the realm of what the Student could reasonably achieve.

********

It is not about grades; it is about providing access to education.

Is the ramp being provided?

Which means, are barriers being removed?

Are they being accommodated?

Key takeaways

  • Grades are not evidence by themselves of accommodations not being provided
  • They could be an “adverse effect” so worthy of putting it in a human rights complaint under the adverse effect section.
  • It’s not about the grades that your child is achieving; it is about whether their barriers are removed and their disability-related needs are being accommodated. (The school will need to provide evidence that they are doing so or at least attempting to do so by adapting, reviewing and modifying their attempts.)

We focus on the BARRIERS. As a parent, you are allowed and expected to communicate the harm and mental health needs of your child.

Bottom line: If the school uses grades as a reason to say “everything is fine” while you know full well your child is experiencing harm, please use these cases in your advocacy.

Posted on

Should I tell the school I filed a human rights complaint?

Good question.

There is strategy in this.

This is a worthy question to sit with and think about.

If you aren’t filing to fast-track your complaint, the current wait list is LONG. Just to find out if your complaint was accepted. (If it is not accepted, you won’t have to wait so long. The ones that are accepted sit in the queue longer until they have the case management capacity for them to proceed.)

When you file a complaint, the school will be unaware unless you tell them. They will only find out if/when your complaint gets accepted.

So, the ball is in your court. What do you want to do?

Here are my reasons for you to consider telling them you filed a complaint. If you talk to other people, which I encourage you to do. They may have different lived experiences. But here are my reasons.

  1. Damage Period. Schools will always try to reduce their liability. In this case, this is good for us. They will try to reduce the harm your child is experiencing so that they won’t have to pay as much or reduce their risk in you being successful at a hearing. Supports that they previously said couldn’t happen will suddenly start to happen. Magic. (They will try to make it seem like it has nothing to do with your complaint.) So telling them they have a human rights complaint coming their way may get your kid more support. If they don’t think you have a case at all, they won’t be concerned. BUT, even still, it puts you in a different category. See reason #2. AND – If nothing else, you will get district eyes, and they will be investigating what is going on.
    .
  2. Parent advocacy. Parents threaten things all the time. All. The. Time. It’s a regular Tuesday for them when a frustrated parent threatens something. I have seen some of the emails. Folks are creative! A much smaller percentage of parents actually file complaints. So if they know you have crossed that line, your threat level just increased. Schools don’t care if you threaten a human rights complaint; they care if you do it. They analyze you by your behaviour. Do you follow through on what you say you will? How far are you willing to go to advocate for your kid? They focus on your behaviour, not your words. If the school thinks you are all bark and no bite, file a complaint. Keep in mind that certain behaviour can kick you out of the advocacy game. 5 Rules on How to be Untouchable. And yet, the school has the duty to provide your child an education regardless of what your advocacy is like.
    .
  3. Retaliation protection. There is retaliation protection built into the legislation of the Human Rights Code. They are not allowed to retaliate against you or your child, which public schools are well aware of that, and if they do, there is an avenue to address that. You can have extra costs given to your child just for the retaliation. People are often scared that filing a complaint will put their child at risk, however, in my experience, it is the opposite. My children got supports they never would have received otherwise, and I felt they were quite protected. The school district knew I could amend my complaint at any time and start adding to it. They knew if I was frustrated, I was more likely to fight and more likely they would then have to justify their behaviour and decisions to the tribunal. When they know external eyes could be looking at this, it can be very helpful.
    .
  4. Resolution time. Because the school is aware, you may wish to see if they want to resolve this sooner rather than later. They may be willing to do that. Some people have had their lawyers send a demand letter or you can even approach them on your own, looking for a solution. They may be interested in talking, as it will be the cheaper route. Or they may not want to take the early resolution route, knowing how long the system takes to process these things. Based on the context of everything, they are strategizing too. They often like to use delay in their favour, but sometimes they realize it’s in their best interest to resolve this now, then feel like they have this hanging over their heads.
    .
  5. Keep it hanging over their heads. It may take a really long time just to find out a complaint has been accepted, and if they are aware of it, they will be on their best behaviour. So use it. Tell them about the complaint, and just let it sit there. They will sit up straighter and just keep it hanging over their heads. Sadly, this is what we need to do just to get our kids their rights, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and that may mean filing external complaints and learning about avenues you never expected to need to have skills in. This is another example of using the system to get our kids an education. It sounds horrible that the wait time is long. But. Then again. They love to use delay on us and hope to exhaust us. We can flip it and use delay to keep them upholding our kids’ rights.
    .

Here are reasons you may not want to tell the school.

  1. Retaliation. Even if there is retaliation form to fill out to hold them accountable for their behaviour, it will still be sitting in the long queue, and it won’t help you in the present. Some people do experience really unusual retaliation because the person they are dealing with is unusually spiteful. (It will come back to bite this person later.) You just don’t know how the school is going to react. They might start to do little things that build over time, and your child is now refusing to go to school, and they have managed to weed you out. If they feel like they can’t control you or you are unmanageable, they have a history of knowing how to make people (or your child) so uncomfortable they “choose” to leave on their own. No one knows for sure how the school is going to respond. I can’t promise you anything or guarantee you any kind of response. You know the players on the field. I have never met these people at all. Districts differ. Some district admin have integrity and more of a moral compass than others.
    .
  2. Emotional readiness. Maybe you just aren’t emotionally ready to tell the school. There is no rush. Once you submit it, you can wait until you are ready and you have your plan thought out.
    .

    ********
    If you do decide to tell them, I suggest you email the Superintendent and the Secretary-Treasurer together and don’t cc: anyone in your child’s school.

    Let the school staff pretend that they don’t know what is going on, and build the relationship with the school staff as much as you can, until you think it is beneficial for it to be out in the open. I would suggest you let it play out a bit after you inform the senior administration and then make the call if and when you ever want to be open about it with school staff. That’s just my two cents.
    **************

Sometimes filing a human rights complaint can be the move that gets you off the hamster wheel. The human rights tribunal is also not the only complaint avenue. There may be other avenues that are more suitable for your issue.

I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be filing complaints against the school when my kids started kindergarten. Never. Being in an adversarial position is a position no parent wants to be in. We aren’t entering these external complaint systems with glee. It’s heartbreaking when you think of it. But these systems are tools. This is Hunger Games. We are thrown in the pit by the system. We didn’t ask for this.

We are reacting to reality.

I have zero regrets. These systems kept my kids afloat in an education system that was never designed for them. It scares me to think what might have happened to them, and to me, if I never went this route.

Here is an overview of your external complaint options.

Posted on

Threat Level – BUILD THE FILE

Do not think for a moment that school administration isn’t assessing your threat level.

They are.

Whether you want them to be or not. They won’t ask your permission.

It most likely will NOT be the teacher, but the SENIOR administration absolutely is, and so is the Principal.

They aren’t just assessing you; they are assessing the cost of the situation as a whole. The details and context of your situation. For example: the cost of an extra EA v. lawyer fees. The details of your allegations with the possible outcome of the tribunal, with wait time, with providing current accommodations etc,. The lawyers will be giving them their advice on how concerned they need to be.

I hate that lawyers cost so much, but in this circumstance it can actually work for us. EA’s are way cheaper than lawyers. I used to wonder how on earth the school district lawyers do what they do and sleep at night. They sleep in silk sheets and sleep absolutely fine. Bless them for being so expensive. The insurance company will not be impressed with the bill. School administrators are also very busy and their time is very valuable. If you want to rack up the bill in money and time on an issue, you can absolutely do so. Be expensive in multiple ways.

School is categorized as a service. If you were to walk into a store, in order to obtain something from that store (a service), you need money. It is the currency of that service. You see something you like; you look at the price tag. Chicken is $25.00. Gum is $1.75.

Your threat level is your currency in your child’s education. (How sad is that.)

You don’t need to threaten anyone.

In fact if you do…. your strength just crashed.

They will view you as weak. They know they will be able to control you, poke you and watch you create your own documentation to weaken your cause. Human rights complaints get dismissed due to rudeness, insulting language, swearing etc, etc, etc. They would LOVE for you to destroy your own case by losing your shit. They cross their fingers for it.

Your strength, your muscles, your flex is going to be documentation and the language you use in your emails.

Why?

Because those will allow you to be successful if and when you file external complaints. That is the threat. They know you are “building your file”. That is what lawyers do. They also build the file in case it ever goes for a Judicial Review. If an employer wants to fire someone they don’t like, they start padding the file. HR departments do this all the time. They pad the file with little things, whether it’s true or not. It all builds over time. Everything builds. Lawyers argue over the smallest things and never let anything go because they know that it’s the little things over time that could be what tips the scales and you win your case.

BUILD YOUR FILE.

Document. Everything.

You may say to me… Kim…I can’t.

I don’t have the capacity.

I don’t have the resources.

I am barely hanging on.

How do I get the school to accommodate my child?

I say, yes, it is unfair. Totally.

The unfairness doesn’t change reality or my response.

I am so sorry.

But here it is.

You may need to file complaints to get yourself off the hamster wheel. So, BUILD your file now.

You may not have the capacity now. You may not have the resources now. You may not be mad enough now. But a few years from now… you just may be. You may have the capacity that you never expected to have. You can’t predict the future. And you will be thanking your younger self for creating this document trail that will now elevate your human rights complaint when you are ready to file. It will give you options. It will give you choice. That is power.

People will naturally think that they are tough and that they are sticking up for their kid when they make a lot of noise, when they get angry, when they threaten the school. I friggen get it. I was so mad, I told the district I was going to gut them like a fish. So, I totally get it. But if you REALLY want to scare the shit out of them and increase your threat level, BUILD YOUR FILE – gather your evidence, document in emails.

Parents threaten the school all the time. It’s just background noise to them. They don’t care. Truly. You think you are having an impact on them. You aren’t. The only arena they are concerned about is the legal one and public relations. If they know you don’t have the documentation (evidence) they are not concerned one bit. Not one bit. You think they are worried because of what you wrote, but they aren’t. They know the one thing that triggers concern in them is documentation, and if you don’t have it, you are nothing to them. They don’t need to do anything. They will flick you off like an annoying bug.

So please,

Document.

Be strategic.

Hearings are years from now, and the tribunal will rely on it.

Elshazly v. Vancouver Police Board 2026 BCHRT 195

This hearing was 6 years after the event.

[11]          The witnesses testified about events that happened in a short period of time, nearly six years earlier. I consider that over this length of time, memories have understandably faded, shifted, or hardened around a particular version of events: Clarke v. City of Vancouver and another, 2024 BCHRT 298 at para. 24. In my view, no party’s account of the incident is completely reliable. ………

[12]         On most issues, I have found that the most reliable evidence is contained in documents created at the time of the events, including the audiovisual recordings put into evidence. I have used these documents as a “reliable yardstick against which to compare and assess the reliability of the witness’ testimony”: Boschoff v. Inspired Retreats, 2014 BCHRT 6 at para. 8; Clarke at para. 24.

*********

Your documentation = your muscle.

** AND, the building of your file now may just be what creates the change so that you will never have to file a complaint. Because the school will know. They will see your muscle flex.

Build your file.

It will benefit you in ways you will never even be aware of. The people who are not building their files will absolutely be walked over.

You are teaching the school how to see you.

The best gift you can give your kid, whether you are comfortable doing this or not, is to build their file.

Don’t wait until you feel comfortable doing this, just do it. You wait until you are ready, you’ll be waiting until a crisis hits. Be uncomfortable and do it anyways. The alternative is worse. Trust me. Way worse.

It may be the very thing that keeps you out of the external complaint system.

We can build an army. A well-informed, knowledgeable, empowered army of passionate parents. All building our files.

Everything the system uses against us, we can reverse and fling it back at them.

They use delay.

We can drag them through YEARS of litigation.

You want to throw delay at me?

Oh honey, I can file complaints, and this isn’t going to be over for you anytime soon.

They will want to limit their damage period.

If I were to ever wish anything for anyone starting out in education with a disabled child, it would be three things.

  1. Get connected to your community. You aren’t alone.
  2. Become knowledgeable of your rights and your child’s rights. Learn about the duty to accommodate.
  3. BUILD YOUR FILE.


THE LANGUAGE to build your file – IS THE DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE.

Blogs on this topic
Documenting for Advocacy ** Key blog
School Protection Program – School Districts – Lawyers: The Three Musketeers
Riddle: Who has the final decision making power?
Liability in Education
This is an Emergency! Serious School Incidents

Posted on

Documenting for Advocacy

Documentation is KEY to your success as an advocate for your child. Absolutely KEY. Without documentation, any success you experience will be due to pure luck.

I have blogs on this topic:

Documentation
Improper Conduct – Hiding Disclosure – What documents to ask for
Why is Documentation so Important?
Evidence of Harm. Effective advocacy in Education
How to Gather Evidence
BCHRT – You need evidence. Hearsay from your child will not be enough.
Getting Documents

But before you get to the blogs. I want to front-load you with this list first.

  1. Email is the best way to record all important communications. Store and organize your emails. Keep ALL of them. You never know what will be useful. Some people like having a separate email just for communicating with the school. You need to not just document what is not working, but also what is working.
  2. After a meeting or a phone call, summarize what was said and email them to confirm that you have captured what was said. Give them an opportunity to clarify anything if you misunderstood. Note the next steps or any actionable items that were agreed upon.
  3. All external complaints require you to try and resolve your issues at the lowest level possible. You will need to send in your emails as evidence that you have made these attempts and that they were unresolved. These emails are going to be what will assist you with getting your complaint accepted by these organizations.
  4. Without evidence, your human rights complaint will go absolutely nowhere. When people have evidence or there is a lack of evidence of the school doing anything (ignoring your emails, not attempting to provide any accommodations, etc) that will all be needed.
  5. All external complaint systems need evidence for their decision-making.
  6. Your emails will trigger certain human rights obligations based on what you say in your email. You will need that information documented.
  7. If it has not been documented, it is like it never happened. Hearings are years after you filed a complaint. Witness memories fade. But when it has been written down in an email, it is like a diamond. Forever.
  8. Emails are not private. Multiple people will be reading them and examining them. Write your emails like they will be read out a tribunal.

Now you are ready for the deeper dive into the blogs.

Note: I just want to acknowledge how emotional it is to realize that this feels like another job. That you are entering into another profession. It sucks. I want to hug you. I have been there and lived this. It is uncomfortable to feel like you are creating “evidence”. The parents/caregivers that resist this reality and don’t feel it is necessary to create documentation, to send thoughtful advocacy emails, will spend their years spinning, getting absolutely nowhere. The system will walk all over you because they can. This sucks. I hear that. It doesn’t matter. While you are grappling with this reality, please document. You can feel uncomfortable and document at the same time. Your child needs you to do this. You are either going to feel uncomfortable watching the harm continuing or you are going to be uncomfortable creating a document trail. Take your pick. What uncomfortableness can you live with? Who are you prioritizing? The adults? Or your child? Advocating for your child’s human rights is not being aggressive. It can be done in a very non-aggressive and respectful way. Document. Document. Document.

Posted on

Human Rights Decision (SD41) – Dismissal Denied

This is a dismissal decision. Self-representing mother won. Lawyers lost.

Keep that in mind. Just because you are up against lawyers on your own, it is not hopeless. Just because they are lawyers doesn’t mean they can wave a magic wand and wiggle out of everything. We have a few cases of parents advancing the Human Rights Code and either getting a discrimination declaration or advancing their cases past a dismissal application.

Here is the case. It’s not the typical ones we see. This is about family status and medical vulnerability.

Student G (by Mother G) v. Board of Education School District 41 (Burnaby)

“He says the School District discriminated against him based on his family status, as the child of a person who is clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19, when it rescinded the requirement for all staff and students to wear face masks in school, in March 2022. He also says that after the mask requirement was rescinded, the School District did not take enough steps to allow him to participate in school without exposing his father to COVID-19. I understand him to allege an ongoing failure to accommodate him by the School District.”

*********

I want to just take a moment here to offer a seed of thought.

When we read human rights decisions, we typically are not going to see our own cases written out in decisions before us. But there may be paragraphs or pieces of a case, or concepts of a case that apply. We may read cases and think…mmmmm that is interesting. Never thought of that.

When lawyers make their arguments, they use case law to support their arguments. They can use case law to say, “See, look at this case; it’s the same thing.” Judges and tribunal members need to follow other case law examples. If it’s in the same province, it is “binding”. If it is another province, it is “influential”. Depending on the level of court, it has different levels of bindingness or influence. I don’t want to get too much into this. You can do your research on this. But, lawyers can also use case law to say, “See, look at this case; it is very different, you can’t apply this law to this situation.”

If you are someone who has a medically complex child or family member, there may be aspects to this decision that you think may apply to you. It may not be about COVID, or it may not even be about a family status connection, but if you were to read this case, are there aspects where you think…. hey….. this actually is very interesting and applies to our situation. You may realize the level of accommodation that you may be entitled to by reading this case.

I do want to admit that I am not quite sure what to highlight in this case for all of you, as I don’t have personal experience in seeking accommodations for medical conditions.

For people with complex medical or immune challenges, I would suggest you read this case, and I’ll be listing it on my Education Case page, as I am sure this will benefit others. You will see what I cannot see, based on your own lived experience.

Why did the mother win?

[3]               For the reasons set out below, I deny the School District’s application to dismiss the complaint. I am not satisfied that Student G has no reasonable prospect of proving he experienced an adverse impact in his education, given the evidence before me that he was exposed to a heightened risk of COVID-19 infection in the school environment. I am not satisfied that he has no reasonable prospect of proving this was connected to his family status, based on evidence that there is a significant risk of people with his father’s medical condition acquiring COVID-19 from school children in their household. I am not satisfied the School District is reasonably certain to prove its conduct was justified. There is no dispute that the School District took some steps to accommodate Student G, by minimising his exposure to COVID-19 at school. But on the materials before me the School District is not reasonably certain to prove it took all reasonable and practical steps to do so.

********

EVIDENCE.

The bar to win a dismissal is not high. You need evidence that “brings your allegations out of the realm of conjecture.” Here is my blog and a case law example of how to respond to a dismissal application.

I also want to highlight this part of the case, because people often get The Charter and Human Rights Code confused.

******

[4]               The School District also applies to dismiss part of the complaint—specifically an allegation in the complaint that the School District contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—on the basis that it is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In response, Student G clarified that he is not advancing a Charter claim, and acknowledged that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over constitutional questions regarding the Charter. I find it is unnecessary to dismiss any part of the complaint on this basis because I consider the statement to be background only.

********

The Charter is part of the Constitution of Canada. This is the highest form of law in Canada.

The BC Human Rights Code is provincial and covers the provincial government and private businesses, private employers, landlords, etc. You can file a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

The Human Rights Act is federal. This applies to the federal government and federal businesses like an airline. You can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

If you were to “advance a Charter claim” you would be filing a civil claim through the BC Supreme Court. Not the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

When people typically say they are “suing” someone, it is through civil action. The court system.

The tribunal is not a court (it is a quasi-judicial body) and you are not “suing” anyone when you file a Human Rights complaint. There are differences between a civil claim and a human rights complaint. One of them is that when you file a civil claim, you risk paying the costs (lawyers’ fees) to the people you are “suing” if you lose. For the human rights tribunal process, you do not risk costs like this in the same way. I have written a blog Is there a Risk in Filing a Human Rights Complaint?

(There are a lot of great YouTube videos that explain our court systems. Have fun learning and exploring.)

When you file a human rights complaint, you are still entering an adversarial legal system. The school district’s lawyers have their clients as their priority, and everything they do and everything they say is for the best interest of their clients, not you. If it works out that what is best for your child and they are aware this is best for them, that is the goal. Win-win for everyone.

Here are my blogs on how liability influences their decision-making.

Liability in Education
School Protection Program – School Districts – Lawyers: The Three Musketeers

Congratulations to Mother G, who won, and her child’s complaint is now continuing. On track for a hearing. If it ends in a settlement, I hope they get the remedies they are seeking. Thanks for the decision!

Posted on

Education Fast-Tracking Application – Denied

This case has a lot of helpful information in it and touches on a lot of different issues. Hats off to the self-representing parent in this complaint.

Issues exposed:

  1. Giftedness – not a protected ground – not a disability protected by the Human Rights Code.
  2. Publication Ban vs. Anonymization – what is the difference?
  3. Fast tracking to mediation meeting accepted – but fast tracking to hearing denied. Why the difference?
  4. What a tribunal will and will not order. For example: Grade corrections are highly unlikely.
  5. Schools shredding evidence – an Order for not destroying documents

Here is the case, and as always, I highly recommend people read the case in full.

Student G (by Parent) v. School District, 2026 BCHRT 184

1. Giftedness – not a protected ground – not a disability

The case doesn’t explicitly state that the parent is stating that their child’s disability is giftedness, although it does reference in paragraph 49 the child’s eligibility into a gifted program. The respondents are stating the student doesn’t have a disability as defined under the Human Rights Code. It made me think of giftedness and I want to take this opportunity to talk about it. The parents requested an IEP and they were denied and given a Student Learning Plan (SLP) instead because the student didn’t qualify for an IEP. IEPs are for kids with disabilities and the district is saying the child doesn’t have one. They gave them a SLP to support the students abilities and challenges. If a child has co-occcuring disabilities, it is their disability that is protected under The Code and not giftedness. If you want your child’s giftedness to be part of their complaint I HIGHLY suggest you consult with a lawyer.

This is why districts can shut down programs specifically for gifted students and not worry about a human rights compliant. This is another example of how liability plays a role in district decision making.

2. Publication ban vs. Order to Anonymize

This decision makes a publication ban regarding information about the student, the parents, the district and the school employees. This is different than a case just be annoymized by the tribunal.

Let us compare two human right case examples.

This decision:

[8] The Student is a minor. For the purpose of protecting their privacy interests, this proceeding is subject to an order restricting publication of their identifying information, including basic personal information (e.g., name, gender, age), health information, and information about where they live and go to school. The publication ban also necessarily applies to information that could identify the Student’s parents. In addition, it restricts publication of the names of the District and its employees.

A different decision regarding anonymization only is: The Student (by the parent) v. The School District, 2025 BCHRT 17

The parent was applying to anonymize their child’s name but name the district in tribunal decisions. The tribunal understood why the parent was wanting to name the school district and they didn’t accept the respondents arguments (connected to the parents online presence). But the tribunal wanted to protect the student from any risk at the greatest level possible. This is the Order to Anonymize.

[22]           For the reasons set out above, the Parent’s application to limit publication is granted. The School District’s request is also granted. I make the following order:

a.   The names of the Parent, the Student, the School District, and non-party witnesses will be anonymized in all pre-hearing decisions;

b.   The case name will be changed to “The Student (by the Parent) v. The School District”;

c.   The Tribunal will not publish or make available to the public any information that could identify the Student; and

d.   If this complaint goes to a hearing, this order is not binding on the presiding Tribunal Member.

*********

The difference?

The anonymization decisions (limiting publication) control the Tribunal. How they write up decisions. It doesn’t place any demands on anyone else. If the person of an anonymized complaint wanted to, they could self-identify their case publicly. However, a publication ban places limitations on anyone in the public including the media on publishing details. Big difference. Anonymization controls the tribunal. Publication ban controls everyone else too. When you make the application to limit publication the tribunal will want you to identify who you are trying to limit. The tribunal? Media? Other people? Here is the link to the BC HRT website with their information on this process where they also mention the Order to Anonymize and Publication Ban.

Publication bans don’t just happen automatically. Either the parent or the school district would need to make an application for this.

3. Fast-Tracking

This decision has informed us that the complaint was originally accepted for fast-tracking to a mediation meeting. The parent filed the complaint November 28th, 2025 and they were given a mediation meeting April 23, 2026. That is about 5 months. Something to keep in mind, that even if you are filing a fast-tracking application we are talking about months here, not weeks. 5 months is considered fast when we are talking about complaint process time. Right now they are reading complaints in February 2024. Complaints filed 2.5 years ago. If you are filing a complaint now, and nothing changes with the BC HRT (no more funding increases, etc), it’s not an unreasonable predication to guess that you will hear the results of your complaint submission (if it has been accepted or not) in about 3 years. Let us all take a moment and let that sink in! 3 years to just find out if it’s been accepted.

I suggest you file your fast tracking applications. Even if they say no to you, you are no worse off than if you don’t apply. Knowing the legal test is going to be very important. A fast tracking application will only speed up the process to get you into a mediation meeting. If the mediation meeting doesn’t resolve anything, you will need to apply again if you feel that a hearing is needed ASAP.

Why were they allowed to fast track before, and not now? It’s different for a hearing.

The test that they need to meet is significantly higher. The tribunal is analyzing all sorts of possibilities and they also take into consideration how this will impact other people waiting in the queue for their hearing. See part A, B and C of the decision. There is a lot of great info here and links to other cases.

Some of the things they consider that they list in this case is:

  • Severity of the harm
  • If the harm is ongoing
  • The scope of the request
  • Reason for the request for it to be fast-tracked
  • If going at the usual pace will harm the process (lose quality evidence or lose the remedy)

You need to explain why your situation is urgent (time-sensitive). The BC HRT website has more information on the legal test here.

The parent was trying their best with a lot of things to help their child. Their tenacity and determination are apparent.

4. What a tribunal will not order for students.

I have mentioned previously in the blog Mediating Through the BC HRT that you can try and negotiate things from a mediation meeting that you will never get from a hearing. Tribunals don’t make orders for everything under the sun or just because you are asking for it. This paragraph is very interesting and could be very helpful to know for parents.

*********

[42]         First, there is no guarantee that the Student’s complaint will be successful, or that if it is, the Tribunal could or would grant the very specific remedy sought. Like the District, I am not aware of any case in which the Tribunal has ordered grade corrections or a plan for grade remediation and academic upgrading under s. 37(2) of the Code.

*********

The remedies that you are seeking can influence how the Tribunal processes your complaint. These are especially taken into consideration for fast-tracking as explained in the decision.

This is important to note when making fast-tracking applications. If you will lose the remedies that you are seeking by not fast-tracking, this is something to highlight.

5. Schools shredding evidence

Sometimes we can be in fear that schools will just get rid of the evidence they have control over. This is super interesting and something new I haven’t seen before from the tribunal. An order for the school district to preserve documents until the complaint has been resolved. The tribunal felt this was appropriate. Interesting!

“I order that the District, including its employees, officers, agents, and representatives, must not destroy or dispose of any documents containing the Student’s personal information until the complaint is resolved.” – paragraph 26.

Conclusion

I cannot express in words how important these decisions are for all of us. Not every decision that the tribunal writes up is posted publicly. They choose decisions that are helpful for public education and that advance The Code. So grateful. Thank you for your advocacy and sheer determination as a self-representing parent.

.

Posted on

Communicating disability-related needs to new teachers – school start-up.

School starts very soon, and what can we do to help our kids?

Communicate our kids’ needs. Don’t trust/rely on staff to do it.

This reality came from a human rights decision. Pay attention here to the wording. This is why it is so important that we make our own “All about me” pages or send our own information letters to teachers at schools. High school included.

*******

Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237

[32]           The Parent was proactive in trying to ensure the Student would be supported in high school. Before school started, she asked to be put in touch with the school counsellor. She reached out to the counsellor immediately on the first day of school and arranged a meeting within the first weeks. In that meeting, she did what she always did with the Student’s teachers: explained the Student’s history of anxiety and some examples of how it could manifest in school. She explained that the Student would not reach out for help when she needed it or show signs of distress. The Parent wanted the Student’s teachers to know about her diagnoses so that they could monitor her and identify if she needed further support. The counsellor recommended that the Student be involved in this messaging, as part of fostering her independence and self-advocacy. The Parent accepted this recommendation.

[33]           The counsellor then met with the Student. She says that it is her practice to ask students “what they would like their teachers to know about their challenges and how their teachers can support them”. Together, the counsellor and Student crafted an email to the Student’s teachers, which said:

[The Student] would like you to know that sometimes she feels overwhelmed when the classroom environment is loud or distracting. It is hard for her to concentrate and she can sometimes feel anxious/panicky.

I have introduced [the Student] to the counselling space and the other counsellors. She would appreciate your understanding if she asks to leave class to take care of her needs and come up to student services. If [the Student] is unable to verbalize her feelings, she may write it down on a piece of paper.

[34]           The Parent did not see this email at the time. From her perspective, the email was not adequate to appropriately communicate the scope of the Student’s school-related needs. It did not fully communicate what the Parent had told the counsellor, and what she had expected would be passed along to the teachers. She felt it was also not realistic to think that the Student would approach a teacher and ask to be excused; in fact, this was not an option that it seems the Student ever exercised. In the Parent’s view, the failure to identify the Student’s diagnoses perpetuated the silence and stigma of mental health and undermined the Student. The message contrasts, for example, with the communication that the Parent sent to the Student’s teachers at the start of her grade 9 year, which said:

My daughter has anxiety and Trichotillomania. She’s on medication and has been connected with a psychiatrist since she was 5 years old. If you ask [the Student] a question in class, she will sometimes panic and need more time to answer a question. Anything with time pressure and her mind will go blank. She will sometimes get overwhelmed if there is a lot of work. I have had discussions with her about testing and if she wants to be tested somewhere else. She has commented that the time pressure for tests, increase her anxiety and she is afraid of running out of time. I have asked her if she wants to be given more time and she says no. If you notice that she uses all of the time allowed for her tests, can you please let me know. I wonder if as her education increases in content if this will become more of an issue for her.

[35]           Very shortly after these initial meetings with the Parent and Student, the counsellor took a leave of absence from work. No one else at the school took further steps to monitor or support the Student in her absence. The next time the counsellor would talk to the Student was in April 2019, again prompted by the Parent. I return to this below.

********

Don’t assume the teacher has read the IEP.

Don’t assume the learning support teacher or anyone communicated anything to the classroom teacher.

September is a WILD month. It could be designed so much better, but as BCEDAccess has written, it is failure by design.

There are a lot of templates for an About Me letter online to create for your teacher. Many people will say, that they don’t feel they SHOULD have to do this. They don’t want to do staff’s work. Correct. You “shouldn’t” have to do it. But we must. Our dream world where everything works isn’t our reality. Not taking a proactive step in my mind, is a risk. Please don’t take it. I wrote letters all the way up to grade 12. Lesson learned.

I highly encourage you to write your own emails (Send a couple of days before day one) and send them to the teacher with the IEP attached. CC: the Vice Principal/Principal (VERY IMPORTANT) and, if you know the Learning Support Teacher/Case Manager, include them as well.

Give them no wiggle room, and if someone goes on a leave without you being informed, other people will be aware.

Communicate & Document.

I have also intentionally put my kids’ diagnoses on their IEP. Schools seem to think that diagnosis information is confidential and unnecessary. That is ridiculous in my mind and only increases the stigma and the lack of support and understanding from teachers.

For more information about this case, issues around masking, self-advocacy or meaningful inquiry you can read the blog.

Posted on

Summer Review

I hope you all have had moments of rest and relaxation. I was originally going to take a break from blogging and social media posts, but rest just seems to lead to more blog writing. So that plan went out the window.

Why am I so fixated on external complaints and education law? Because I know it can help people.

So for those of you who took a social media break or were away on vacation, here is a recap with a list of blogs from the end of June through August.

BLOG

Settlements and Legal Fees 2012-2026 (Public Schools) – Students and Employees

Does a single comment violate the Code?

What do I do now?

It is not about intent. It is about impact.

Part 7 – Applying the Duty to Accommodate – Focus on Needs

Cease and Desist Letters

When a preferred EA is no longer supporting your child.

School Trustees

Teacher Training – Is it enough?

Masking – Students who say – “I’m fine”

Workplace Stress – Bad Boss – Not necessarily discrimination

They aren’t breaking you. They are building you.

School Protection Program – School Districts – Lawyers: The Three Musketeers

My new page is: BC Human Rights Tribunal Process

My updated pages are: Mediation through the BC Human Rights Tribunal