BLOG

Posted on

ANNOUNCEMENT – BUILDING ADVOCACY!

ID: a picture of a bookcase with lots of books, shows two rows with the words BUILDING ADVOCACY. Systemic thinking – writing from a social justice advocate

Hello Everyone,

I am building a second blogging project. I have so much to write about.

The vibe of this website are different than what I write about with P.A.T.H.

P.A.T.H is very focused on the information you need to know to do your advocacy. How to navigate the external systems and your child’s human rights in education.

This website is different.

This focuses on the emotional process of advocacy and how to do systemic advocacy and not lose yourself in the process. Advocating without having your life crumble around you.

From my front page:

“I work in the area of law – human rights. My clients are the most abused, traumatized, oppressed, rejected and trapped adults in our society.

I see the darkest parts of humanity. From those who are in the system, those who operate it, and those who fight to maintain it.  The level of trauma that I am a witness to would be unbelievable to the general public.

My workdays are spent relentlessly strategizing, advocating, and navigating the machine that does not want to change.

So, why am I so friggen happy?

I hope this website and my blogs help to increase your mental and emotional health while you work towards inclusive, positive change for your communities .“

The goal of this website is to talk about all the different ways to keep yourself psychologically afloat and not hate the world.

There is an art to advocacy. How we choose to do it can be unique and individual to us. We all need to find something that works. Figure out what our own mental frameworks are going to be so we can do the work and still soak up all of the joys of life.

My website takes a systemic thinking lens to creating change. I have my own advocacy mindset that works for me. I am able to weed through some pretty horrific, dark aspects of humanity, and I still love life and people. Learning how to find peace in chaos and gratitude in trauma is worthy work, I think.

If you are interested in the mental and emotional aspects of advocacy, come on by.

I have another Facebook page to match my new website. I’ll be sharing my blogs on that page, but also content from other professionals and people around topics related to mental and emotional health.

As my PATH focuses on human rights in education, this website isn’t focusing on education per se. It is more general and can apply to multiple human systems.

Here is my website. www.buildingadvocacy.com

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

    Posted on

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

    It is a story as old as time. 

    Power. Control. Money. 

    How do you dominate and suppress a large number of people? How do you force them through a maze that they are going to fight every step of the way? 

    This story has actually already occurred in history before. People with disabilities were institutionalized. The goal was to move everyone into the community. However, the dream never came to fruition. It fell apart due to the support in the community never being developed. The training wasn’t there. The funding wasn’t provided. The attitudinal shift required from society never blossomed. People were moved from institutions to filling up prisons, surviving the streets, and families were left navigating and policed through scarce, tightly controlled community systems that have never been enough. 

    In education, disabled children previously were automatically separated in segregated classrooms and segregated schools. Inclusion became the dream, and disabled students were all moved into mainstream classrooms. But the training wasn’t there. Funding wasn’t provided. The attitudinal shift required from society never blossomed. Children started filling up online distant learning programs, escaped to independent schools, and families were left navigating and policed through scarce, tightly controlled public schools that have never been enough. 

    How do you control the masses of parents of disabled children trying to advocate for equitable access to education when the maze they are navigating isn’t currently designed for that?

    It turns out. 

    Through insurance, risk management and litigation oppression. 

    All behind closed doors. 

    I am going to start right at the top. 

    The School Protection Program (SPP) is an insurance company. All school districts take taxpayers’ money and pool it together for insurance for all the districts. As explained in a BC Human Rights Tribunal (BC HRT) decision Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No.9), 2025 BCHRT 310  “The School Protection Program [SPP] is an insurance program that provides school districts protection against liability imposed by law for damages to third parties, and all costs and expenses incurred in defense of such claims.” (para 2). According to the SPP’s administrator handbook this includes human rights complaints (page11). 

    The insurance company pays the bills and can withdraw paying the legal fees from representing law firms when it’s not in their financial interest to continue. (1) They also will approve long fights when the big picture is justified. We all know how insurance companies work. It’s about money. Rejecting people to see if they appeal and fight back. Then give in. How many documentaries and news reports have we seen on this? Lots. Soulless entities. Parents are instructed by mediators in mediation meetings at the BC HRT that lawyers are making their settlement offers based on a cost-risk analysis. 

    The person who is waiting to receive compensation or accommodation supports at school is a disabled child. Not the parent. No one is going shoe shopping after this.

    Let’s back track a bit. Before we even get to a mediation meeting. The cost-risk analysis is being done in the school district by administrators. They size up the parent. Take their education into consideration. Analyze their emotional capacity. Try to figure out their resources. They see how willing you are to please. How do you respond to authority? Marginalized parents and disabled parents are impacted the hardest. Polite racism and ableism form ability conclusions and risk assessments. They fit all parents through the maze in school meetings and emails. Will whip you back into your place during phone calls, and seemingly casual but potent last-minute conversations at drop-off and pick-up. They correct your behaviour, and remind you where you stand. They have the real power here, and they know it. Backed up by the School Act. For fear of retaliation and our children being unwanted, we fall in line. 

    Then harm has occurred. Sometimes slowly building over time or a serious event. Regardless, you have been pushed past your limit.  You file a human rights complaint. You are entering an adversarial legal process. Another system that is underfunded and over capacity, and so will last years. 

    It comes down to money. 

    Is it cheaper for them to accommodate your child or to litigate? Do they think you have what it takes to make litigation more expensive than accommodating your child?

    It’s an insurance payout decision. 

    The parents who have the capacity, the resources and the knowledge of how this system works are able to leverage it. They use the legal language in emails necessary and mark their territory. They are potentially expensive. The school district is more interested in providing. They know what they may have to justify to the tribunal if this doesn’t go well. For those that don’t, everyone else will be squeezed through the maze until they just can’t take it anymore. Our prisons are filled with kids who have jumped ship. 

    People talk about how to fix the education system. There is never one solution. No matter what that person’s idea is, the system is too complex. There are too many layers. There are too many people and stakeholders, and rights holders involved. Too many gears all locked together. 

    For this blog, I am focusing on the silent captain of the education system. The insurance company. We want transparency in the decision-making of the money that is spent on litigation matters. 

    School districts may have insurance to cover human rights complaints and other litigation, but according to school districts’ annual Statement of Financial Information (SOFI) reports, some districts are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and even millions on lawyers’ fees. What are they spending this on? Was this money originally intended for our children? Is it now being spent on litigation oppression strategies instead?

    In the Surrey School District, a 2014 human rights complaint decision revealed that they were spending money on surveillance for a teacher who was on medical leave for depression and anxiety.

    “Ms. Steele says that she believes the Board hired a private surveillance company to monitor her whereabouts and activities on her unpaid days off work during her GRTW. The Board agrees that they did so.” (2)

    Is this what they are spending money on in their SOFI reports, or is this also insurance approved? Where is the budget line for surveillance of staff? 

    When school districts don’t have to explain what they spend their money on, there is an opportunity for litigation abuse, oppression, power and unethical decision-making. 

    Do you know that litigation is designed to be hard? It is to deter people from suing people or filing complaints that aren’t of great importance. Otherwise, it is believed that the floodgates would open and everyone would be filing complaints. Let that sink in. There are so many people with unmet needs, and this is how the system stops them from taking action. How you herd sheep through the maze and keep them quiet. Give them the appearance of a resolution avenue. Make them think it’s their own fault for not using it.

    Is this part of the reason why the government isn’t too keen to fully fund the BC HRT? The Chair wrote a personal message on the BC HRT website stating she is leaving her position early out of pure frustration, as reported by The Tyee.  Is this the intent of the government? Trying to widdle everyone out. Only leaving the ones with enough privilege, time, capacity and resources to navigate this other maze. Parents are calculating their own cost-risk analysis too.

    Insurance, law firms, senior administrators, hidden budgets, hidden spending, all land on the backs of disabled children. Who have no choice. No say in how this system runs. And when they don’t squeeze themselves hard enough… it’s blamed on them. Their character flaw. Their deficit. 

    What. The. Fuck!

    We want transparency. Can we start there? Come on, school districts, what on earth are you spending sooooooo much money on? Why are some school districts not spending any money on legal fees? What are you hiding? 

    If it is ethical spending that you think the public would understand, then why not explain it as part of your budget? 

    When the school district is so underfunded that there isn’t anything left, there should not be a secret hidden part of budget spending that isn’t explained. We don’t need a novel; a summary would be a great start. 

    So, parents, when we ask for accommodations, let me start the email for you. 

    Dear Insurance Company, 

    I hope you are well.

    *********
    (1) Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 8), 2025 BCHRT 64, para 6

    (2) Steele v. School District No. 36, 2014 BCHRT 276, para 21

    BLOG: Settlements and Legal Fees

    Posted on

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

    “When you walk to the edge of all the light you have and take that first step into the darkness of the unknown, you must believe that one of two things will happen:

    There will be something solid for you to stand upon, or, you will be taught to fly.” – Patrick Overton

    I have a lot of quotes that I love. This one I found in my early twenties. It has stayed with me all these years. I can tell you that as I was approaching my hearing and starting my degree, this is what I kept in mind. I was all eyes and ears for any piece of information that was going to cross my path. I had no idea what I was doing, and I felt completely in the dark.

    Life can be pretty incredible sometimes. Unpredictable. For the good, the bad and the ugly.

    What can start out as a complete pile of horse shit can become fertilizer. Be what fuels the seeds buried inside of you to grow.

    There are many people who have taken what they learned through advocating on behalf of their own children in education and have created something beautiful out of it. By helping others. Spreading everything they have learned.

    Some people have turned it into a new career, have gone into politics, taken on leadership roles, become “advocates”, or volunteer in various support roles in their communities. Parents have gone back to school to become teachers, education assistants, literacy tutors, non-profit leaders, etc. People have been evolving, pivoting, and shifting as they navigate life. But they are forever bringing what they learned and practiced with them, and other people are benefiting.

    I feel very grateful for having the opportunity to return to school and get a second degree. This time in criminology and legal studies. I work as a Health Care & Human Rights Legal Advocate for the most traumatized and marginalized population of people in our society. Most of my clients are disabled. The extent of trauma that they have lived through, and are currently living through, I can’t even wrap my head around as to how these people are still breathing. I never talk about my work to friends or family. I see it as an act of love that I keep this part of my life away from them. This work isn’t for anyone who can’t live in the grey. The government systems I advocate in are brutal, abusive, and oppressive, intentionally targeting my clients behind system-approved processes. I have meetings with dangerous people who all wear suits and say they care. I love my job. I do a mix of direct 1:1 individual client work and also systemic work. Every day is a protest. A strategic act of rebellion. A part of my advocate role is that I write human rights complaints and represent clients navigating human rights systems. If you ask me where I want to be in five years and what I want to be doing, it is this. Here is where I want to be. Everything I have experienced, navigating my own experience advocating for my children and navigating the BC HRT combined with my own lived experience, has benefited my clients. I learn more every day.

    To the parents out there who are in the dark. Furious. Angry. Ready to take on the world. I say this: use it. Be open to what the future will place in front of you. It may not feel like it, but you are learning so much right now. You are in the thick of it now, but you won’t always be. You never know what nuggets of gold you are learning and how this will help other people in the future. People are always going to need help. The need will never end. It’s natural for advocates to take breaks. Collect ourselves. Reflect and sometimes pivot into other helping roles. But our experiences are never wasted.

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

    You never know…..

    Just be open.

    One day you may find yourself in the most wonderful position in life. To help someone else.

    Posted on

    Workplace Stress – Bad Boss – Not necessarily discrimination

    Matheson v. School District No. 53 (Okanagan Similkameen) and Collis, 2009 BCHRT 112

    [14]           Stress, in itself, is not a disability for the purposes of the Code.  In particular, workplace stress resulting from an employer investigating alleged performance problems, or from a problematic relationship with a supervisor, is not alone sufficient to constitute a disability for Code purposes.  The stress alleged by Ms. Matheson was reactive to her workplace situation, and she does not say that, at any point, she notified her employer of an ongoing mental health issue.

    [15]           Despite the respondents’ submissions questioning Ms. Matheson’s allegations of mental disability, Ms. Matheson did not provide any evidence or further information in support of her alleged mental disability in her response to the application.

    [16]           On the materials before me, I am satisfied that Ms. Matheson has no reasonable prospect of establishing that she had a mental disability which was either known, or should have been known, to the respondents during the course of her employment.  Nor does she have a reasonable prospect of establishing that they were under a duty to inquire whether she had a mental disability.

    [17]           Further, on my review of the entirety of the materials, it is clear that Ms. Matheson’s real concern is based on her belief that Mr. Collis ill-treated her.  She alleges that he “micro-managed” and “hounded” her, “thrived on gossip” and “enjoyed making inappropriate comments about” her, and was otherwise unprofessional and unethical in his dealings with her.  She refers to having “distrusted” him “immensely”.  Mr. Collis denies these allegations, and I make no findings with respect to them. 

    [18]           If Ms. Matheson’s allegations about Mr. Collis’ behaviour are true, they would not provide a basis for a complaint of discrimination contrary to the Code.  The Code does not prohibit all bad behaviour, including all bad management behaviour.  It prohibits discriminatory behaviour on the grounds prohibited in the Code.  Here, Ms. Matheson’s allegations, if true, suggest personal harassment and mismanagement, matters potentially grievable under a collective agreement.  They do not suggest discrimination on the basis of mental disability, because they do not suggest any connection between the alleged bad behaviour and Ms. Matheson’s mental disability, real or perceived.

    [19]           For all of these reasons, I am satisfied that Ms. Matheson has no reasonable prospect of establishing that the respondents discriminated against her in employment on the basis of mental disability.

    IV      conclusion

    [20]           The complaint is dismissed.

    **************

    You have to have a protected ground first. This person didn’t have that. As always, I encourage you to read the case in full.

    There are other ways to deal with bad bosses. Your school district will have workplace bullying and harassment procedures, and filing a complaint with WorkSafe might be an option. You may also need to be in contact with your union and file a grievance with your union before you even consider a human rights complaint.

    School districts jump when WorkSafe is involved. You can submit a mental health injury claim.

    From the WorkSafe website:

    ********

    Benefits for an accepted mental health injury claim

    If we accept your claim, the type and duration of benefits you receive will depend on the medical and psychological evidence and the nature of the mental health injury.

    Benefits may include the following:

    • Support for returning to work
    • Compensation for lost wages
    • The costs of treatment by a doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist
    • The costs of treatment for a mental health program
    • The costs of prescription drugs needed to treat the condition

    If you are experiencing bullying or harassment

    If you are experiencing bullying or harassment in your workplace, please review our bullying and harassment information to see how to report it and learn about your next steps. 

    *********

    Employment issues in school districts can be challenging to navigate; I highly suggest you consult with a lawyer if you are considering filing a human rights complaint. One thing I do want to highlight is that there are laws on whether employees are allowed to record their colleagues or not. There has been a lot of law stating no, and that you could lose your job over this. Some other case law has said depending on the context. The one-person consent rule is very different in an employee context, and I HIGHLY suggest you contact a lawyer if you are considering recording anyone at work. Consulting a lawyer could save your job. There are certain issues that ChatGPT is not going to help you with, and this is one of them. Don’t just do your internet research. This topic is one you need legal advice for. I can’t stress this enough.

    There is another very important case related to stress in the workplace and how it needs to meet the legal test of discrimination: this case.

    I highly encourage an employee to read this blog regarding employment and stress. You must be negatively impacted in your employment, not your life. There is going to be a lot of unfairness or wrongness that could be happening at work. It doesn’t mean it’s going to meet the legal test of discrimination in an employment situation.

    I also suggest you read the blog: Does a Single Comment Violate the Code? It may save you from the experience of navigating a system you don’t need to be.

    I have read A LOT of school district employee human rights decisions. Not all work issues are going to be resolved with state intervention via the BC Human Rights Tribunal. This is just one avenue among many. There are a lot of things to consider. When it comes to employment and if you are still working in the district, I don’t suggest this be your automatic knee-jerk reaction go-to. Consult with an employment-human rights lawyer and think about it. I suggest you also read a lot of school district employee human rights decisions. You can look through them all from BC here.

    Posted on

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

    There are a lot of kids out there who are masking at school. They are like calm ducks on the outside and their feet are paddling a mile a minute under the water.

    Parents are raising concerns in meetings, and the teacher or counsellor will pull the child aside and ask them if they are ok. Child says, “I’m fine”. The teacher will report back to the parent, “We had a conversation with them and they say they are fine.” Implying that the parent is overreacting.

    Meanwhile, we are ready to rip our faces off, desperate for the school to take our concerns seriously as we see the meltdowns and dysregulation when they get home.

    This comes from the Meaningful Inquiry decision from a self-representing parent. If you have a child who masks during the day, these paragraphs may be helpful for your advocacy. With this decision, you have evidence that the tribunal says: It is not enough for the school to accept “I’m fine” from a child.

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

    [96]           On balance, I am not persuaded that the District’s response to the situation after April 24, 2019, was a reasonable one. The Parent had brought forward relevant facts of the Student’s diagnoses and the toll that school was taking on her. I do not accept that the onus was entirely on the Parent or Student to utter the magic word of “accommodation” before the school took steps to explore the reasons that the Student’s mental health was being so impacted by school. Nor do I accept that the simple fact that a 13-year-old child with anxiety says they are “fine” is enough to end a school’s obligations. At this point, the school had enough information to understand that something at school was adversely impacting the Student in connection with her disabilities, and it was in the best position to investigate the causes. If it felt it needed more information from the Parent or the Student, it could have and should have asked. Again, the goal is to ensure that the Student is afforded equitable access to an education.

    [97]           I distinguish the cases cited by the District. In Purdy v. Douglas College, 2016 BCHRT 117, the complainant was an adult in post-secondary education. She requested, and was granted, accommodations in her course load and support navigating various student services and her exam schedule. The College was proactive in asking the complainant whether she needed accommodation, including when she fell behind in her classes and was late handing in coursework. In response to the College’s inquiries, the complainant said she did not need accommodation and did not provide medical information that the College requested. In her human rights complaint, the complainant argued that the College failed to identify she was struggling and failed to act to support her in her education: para. 72. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint in part because the College could not have known she required further accommodation.

    [98]           Importantly, unlike the District in this case, the College in Purdy had repeatedly asked the complainant whether she required accommodation and offered her opportunities to submit medical information. Having done that, it was entitled to rely on the complainant’s statements that she did not require accommodation, rather than “speculate” about what she might need: para. 75. In contrast here, the District was not proactive in asking the Student and Parent about possible accommodations and offering the opportunity to provide medical information. And I cannot conclude that, in light of what it knew from the Parent, the District’s obligations were satisfied after the Student – a child – said she was fine.

    [99]           Next, in B v. School District, 2019 BCHRT 170, the evidence supported that the school district provided the child with the recommended supports and accommodations. The Tribunal found that it was “only with hindsight” that it was possible to say that the child could have benefited from more support: para. 81. It dismissed the complaint in part because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the school district reasonably ought to have known that the child required more: para. 98. In contrast here, I have found that the District had sufficient information to trigger some kind of inquiry or response beyond asking the Student how she was doing and, assuming the counsellor did this, advising of available supports.

    [100]      In short, I agree with the District that the Parent and Student were obliged to bring forward information relating to accommodation. The Parent did that, when she communicated that the Student had anxiety and trichotillomania and that school was taking a significant toll on her physical and mental health. That information should have been enough to prompt a meaningful inquiry by the school to identify what was triggering the Student’s symptoms and what supports or accommodations may be appropriate to ensure she was able to meaningfully and equitably access her education. The failure to take that step was, in my view, not reasonable. As a result, the disability-related impacts on the Student, arising from conditions in her Language 10 class between April 24 and June 27, 2019, have not been justified and violate s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

    ********

    From the same case, the student who testified at the hearing explained this:

    *******

    [44]           The counsellor then checked in with the Student, who reported that “she is doing well [and] is finding the workload fine”. In fact, I accept that the Student was not doing well. In her evidence, the Student explained, “I just wanted everything to be ok, so I said that it was” and “I didn’t want to make more of a hassle than was already happening so I didn’t want to add on it… I thought that I could just get it over with I guess”. The counsellor did not take further steps after this meeting.

    ********

    In this case, discrimination was found and the tribunal made an order.

    If your child is masking and it sounds and looks like this, it doesn’t need to be exactly that they say “I’m fine”. But are they saying other things that are similar?

    If you are raising concerns, they have to investigate BEYOND just accepting your child saying they are fine.

    This case highlighted, for the first time, the duty to inquire in education, and called it “Meaningful Inquiry”

    A parent needs to inform the school that their child is struggling and that they believe this struggle is connected to their disability. The school must investigate. They have to be proactive and ensure the child is receiving equitable access to their education.

    It also brought forward and defined expectations around self-advocacy for students with disabilities.

    [90]           Generally, it is the obligation of the person seeking accommodation to bring forward the relevant facts: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 970. This can be challenging for children, and especially challenging for children with invisible disabilities. I agree with the Parent that 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.

    *******

    If you take your case to hearing, or are even in a mediation meeting, the school knows that they will need to provide the tribunal with documentation and evidence that they are providing a child with reasonable accommodations. If they can’t do that, they know they are in trouble. Hence, when you start using rights-based language in your emails, advocacy can be very effective. They are thinking of their liability and the damage period.

    To read more about the nuggets from this case, here are more blogs:

    Self-Advocacy and Victim Blaming

    Self-Advocacy, Meaningful Inquiry, IEP, Transition to High School

    Part 3 – Meaningful Inquiry Duty to Inquire

    As always, I encourage people to read the case in full.