BLOG

Posted on

A HR Decision for School Employees

There is so much to learn about human rights law when we read decisions.

This decision is not an education case, but it is 100% relevant for school employees filing complaints for disability.

There are people who have gone through the human rights tribunal system and have left quite frustrated. Their experience didn’t pass the legal test of discrimination. Their experience could have been horrible, unfair, and wrong. The tribunal isn’t making a moral compass decision or an unfair wrongness decision. They are the ones who decide if discrimination has occurred. The complaint needs to pass the legal test for discrimination which includes analyzing the accommodation PROCESS.

There is so much to learn from this case. I am going to highlight the learnings that stick out to me, but as usual, I encourage everyone to read the case in full.

Worker A v. Fraser Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 250

[3]               There is significant evidence to support that Worker A’s mental health was negatively affected by her work during the pandemic, with terrible consequences for her and her family. However, respectfully, the evidence could not support a finding that Fraser Health discriminated against Worker A. This is because Worker A has not identified any disability-related adverse treatment or impacts in her employment. This is necessary to trigger any corresponding duties by Fraser Health to inquire about and/or accommodate her disability-related needs. Even if those duties were triggered, Fraser Health is reasonably certain to prove that it gave Worker A an opportunity to identify any disability-related needs and she did not do so. In those circumstances, its duties in the accommodation process did not arise.  The complaint is dismissed.

[48]           To trigger the protection of the Code, Worker A is required to point to disability-related adverse treatment or adverse impact in her employment. Here I emphasise that the “adverse impacts” must arise in the complainant’s employment and not in their life generally. Adverse impacts in employment include, for example, termination, discipline, differential treatment, or working conditions that unfairly exclude a person from completing work they are otherwise able to do: Hydro-Québec at para. 14.

********

Key Takeaways from these two paragraphs”

  • People MUST disclose their disability-related needs.
  • Adverse impacts have to be connected to their employment and not their life generally.

*******

[49]           Without more, an employee is not adversely impacted in their employment when they are assigned work or subject to management oversight. I agree with Fraser Health that “employers have the fundamental right to manage the workplace and make operational decisions they see fit, subject only to certain legal obligations”: Kondolay v. Pyrotek Aerospace Ltd, 2020 BCHRT 208 at para. 125. Employees may not agree with those decisions, and they may be bad ones that make an employee’s work harder or less efficient. However, absent some negative treatment or job-related consequence for an employee, they are not matters for this Tribunal.

[55]           As I have said, the duty to inquire is triggered when an employer is contemplating action that will negatively affect an employee in their employment (i.e. discipline) and has some reason to believe that the underlying behaviour may be related to disability: Gardiner v. Ministry of Attorney General, 2003 BCHRT 41 at para. 162. In that circumstance, they are required to inquire about the reasons underlying the behaviour. This is intended to put an employee on notice and give them the opportunity to bring forward information that could support an accommodation: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 SCR 970. As with any obligation under human rights law, perfection is not the standard.

[58]           In my view, Fraser Health is reasonably certain to prove that it fulfilled any duty to inquire when it gave Worker A the opportunity, in the October 20 meeting, to explain why she was not completing certain work. Worker A was accompanied in that meeting by a union representative. To the extent the next stage may have been disciplinary (which is purely speculative), Worker A had the chance to explain that she could not complete the work for disability-related reasons. Leaving aside the prospect of discipline, this was also an opportunity for Worker A to tell the Manager that she had a disability and needed accommodation. This information would have triggered Fraser Health’s obligations in the accommodation process: Renaud. However, there is no evidence that, at any point before her long-term medical leave, Worker A told the employer that she had a disability or that she required accommodation. In this circumstance, Fraser Health is reasonably certain to prove that its duties in the accommodation process were not triggered, and so any disability-related adverse impacts were justified.

[60] …….

Mr. Vanderveen’s argument that he asked for accommodation by telling Heritage that he was receiving too much work is not persuasive. Many employees may ask their employers to relieve their workload, and such requests may be warranted and entirely reasonable. However, the term “accommodation” is a term of art in human rights law. It refers specifically to the process of removing barriers in employment that relate to personal characteristics protected by the Code – in this case, disability. According to Mr. Vanderveen’s own evidence, he did not tell Heritage that the reason he needed relief was related to his disabilities. As such, the request to relieve his workload could not properly constitute a request for accommodation. [para. 38]

******

That is very interesting.

“accommodation” is a term of art in human rights law.”

“the process of removing barriers in employment that relate to personal characteristics protected by the Code – in this case, disability.”

*******

[63]           This is a sad case. There is a lot of evidence that Worker A took great pride in her work, and her life has been completely altered since her mental health declined in 2020 for reasons related to her working conditions at that time. However, the evidence could not support a finding that Fraser Health discriminated against Worker A in her employment. Her human rights complaint is dismissed.

*******

This case is similar to an education case that I think is really important for staff to be aware of. Stress and anxiety caused by your workplace is not a disability protected by the Code. The blog by the Human Rights Clinic explains this well.

Stress, Anxiety and the Duty to Accommodate

“In a case called Matheson,[4] Ms. Matheson filed a human rights complaint alleging that she was subjected to abusive behaviour from a supervisor. She had a history of anxiety and panic attacks as well as depression. On two occasions during her employment, Ms. Matheson informed her employer that she was suffering from “stress.” However, she did not provide any medical information that said she had a mental disability.

The Tribunal dismissed Ms. Matheson’s complaint, stating that “an essential element of a complaint of discrimination in employment on the basis of mental disability is proof that the complainant either had a mental disability… or was perceived to be mentally disabled by the employer.” The Tribunal also said that “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 takeaway: by failing to provide her employer with proof of a mental disability, Ms. Matheson was unable to establish that she had a mental health condition beyond “the commonly experienced emotion” of stress. Therefore, the employer did not have a duty to accommodate her.”

These decisions are so helpful for the rest of us. They really are gifts of learning, and because of these decisions, people can learn what they need to do to navigate the duty to accommodate process and decide if filing a human rights complaint is an option for them.

  • We need to disclose disability-related needs to trigger the duty to inquire

If you don’t want to disclose your disability to your workplace, cool. That is your right to not do so. Just don’t file a human rights complaint.

  • Be prepared to provide documentation of your disability from a professional.

For more information on the Duty to Accommodate, here are some important topics to be aware of.

Posted on

Is There a Financial Risk to Filing a Human Rights Complaint?

Filing a Human Rights Complaint is not the same as “suing” someone. When people say they are going to sue someone, they are talking about the civil litigation route. There are various types of courts, like small claims courts and tribunals. The Civil Resolution Tribunal is an example.

“You can bring many civil law disputes for amounts from $5,001 to $35,000 to the BC Provincial Court’s small claims court” – Provincial Court of BC

You don’t need to pay a fee to file a human rights complaint. The Human Rights Tribunal is an administrative body and is court-like, known as “quasi-judicial body”. It is a legal process, and so you are entering an adversarial legal process. You and the school district lawyers aren’t buddies working together to suss out the truth. Every move they make is going to be in the best interest of their clients. (Hint: look for the win-win for both of you)

In a civil process, you risk having to pay the legal fees of the person you filed against if you lose. But in the Human Rights Tribunal process, you don’t take that risk.

On the BC HRT’s website page, they state this:

******

Costs in court cases

In court, “costs” has a special meaning. Costs are about the costs of going to court.

In court, the losing side usually pays “costs” to the winning side. The “costs” are usually a part of the winning side’s actual costs.

Costs of going to the Human Rights Tribunal

Unlike in court, parties at the Tribunal pay their own costs. The Tribunal does not order the losing side to pay “costs” to the winning side.

*******

Does a Human Rights Complaint Cost Anything?

If you are self-represented, the Human Rights Tribunal process can be a free process if you aren’t paying lawyers’ fees. If you do retain a lawyer for the full process of your human rights complaint, it is risky. Lawyers’ fees add up VERY quickly and human rights settlements tend to be low. So you could possibly come out with nothing or even be in the hole. You don’t want to have to pay more money than what you get back. Seeking a pro bono lawyer or getting legal advice at various parts of the way (either paid or through the Human Rights Clinic) and being self-represented can keep your costs low or down to absolutely nothing.)

BUT….

And this is a big BUT, so all eyes on this.

You may have to pay costs IF the respondents file an improper conduct complaint against you and apply for costs, or they can also ask that your human rights complaint be dismissed. They are going to want to frustrate you to the point that you lose your shit, and they hope you start attacking them personally and call them names. If you do this, they have got you. They also like to generally do these things in hopes that you will tire. For some people, it just pisses them off even more, and it puts gas in their gas tank to keep going at the injustice of it all. They just don’t know which group you belong to, and so they will test you to figure it out.

Getting you to lose your shit is an EASY way out for them.

Don’t take the bait.

Here is an example:

******

Miremadi v. Fairmont Hotel Vancouver (No. 2), 2023 BCHRT 53

[3]               The Respondent applies to dismiss the Complaint under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Human Rights Code [Code]. The Respondent says that Mr. Miremadi has communicated inappropriately with the Respondent’s legal counsel throughout the proceeding, and that in these circumstances, it would not further the purposes of the Code to proceed with the Complaint. The Respondent says that Mr. Miremadi has repeatedly sent rude, derogatory, and demeaning emails to Respondent’s counsel, targeting her personally, and that in some instances, inappropriate personal comments have been based on her race or ethnicity. The Respondent also says Mr. Miremadi has made serious and baseless allegations against Respondent’s counsel, and has refused to follow the Tribunal’s process and directions to address an issue related to disclosure of documents. If the Tribunal dismisses the Complaint, the Respondent also asks that Mr. Miremadi pay the Respondent $1,000 in costs for improper conduct.

[16]           On April 16, 2020, Respondent’s counsel wrote to the Tribunal to advise that Mr. Miremadi had sent her emails referring to her as an “asshole”, “dirtbag”, and “scumbag”, and telling her to “go to hell”. She attached copies of Mr. Miremadi’s correspondence, and referred to Rule 7(7). She requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Complaint, or at least restrict Mr. Miremadi’s continued involvement in the matter, due to the rude and vulgar language he used.  

199]      Overall, the information before me suggests that any costs award may pose financial hardship for Mr. Miremadi. I considered this factor along with the seriousness of his conduct and the impact on the integrity of the Tribunal’s process. I find that in the circumstances, where Mr. Miremadi’s conduct has led to dismissal of his Complaint, one of (if not the) most significant consequence for a complainant at the Tribunal, an award of costs is not necessary for deterrence in the circumstances.

******

There is a lot more to this case, and I suggest you read it in full. There is also a long list of leading cases on the BC HRT on improper conduct applications as well.

Lawyers will often intentionally put the wrong dates in emails, or send confusing emails seeking your response for clarification, report technical difficulties in receiving your files, ignore your emails, consistently ask for extensions, all to make you engage with them in hopes to get information and test how you communicate with them, or in hopes you will get frustrated and blow up at them. They are consistently interested in measuring your emotional capacity. It’s all information to them.

The good thing is, is that you can file an improper conduct on THEM as well.

You will want to read the important info page on this that is posted on the BC HRT website.

Here is a section from that page:

******

Improper conduct is conduct that harms the process or the parties.

Conduct can be improper even if the party did not mean to harm the process or the parties.

Usually, the Tribunal will not order costs for minor problems.

Minor problem example:A party files a document late. Usually, this isn’t enough to order costs.

Examples of conduct that may be improper and result in a costs order:

  • Treating people in the process badly
    • Being rude or sarcastic during a hearing
    • Badmouthing other parties or Tribunal staff or members
    • Threatening other parties or Tribunal staff or members
    • Being disrespectful to other parties or Tribunal staff or members
  • Harming the hearing process
    • Destroying evidence
    • Lying to the Tribunal when giving evidence
  • Causing unnecessary cost or delay
    • Refusing to follow a Tribunal order
    • Saying you’ll attend the hearing then not showing up, with no excuse
    • Waiting until the hearing to say that the Tribunal doesn’t have power to deal with the complaint

*******

So, before you send emails to the lawyers, take a breather. Know that everything they do and do not do is strategic, and keep your eyes on them. Their strategy is information for you, too!

Collect and keep everything from them, and if you feel that what they are doing might meet the test for improper conduct, it might be something you wish to consider.

The BC HRT needs to know and be aware of what these lawyers are doing. As self-representative individuals, it already feels unfair that we are up against lawyers in a legal arena. It should at least be procedurally fair.

If nothing else, you can shine a light on what you have been dealing with. There is value in that!

Not everyone is going to be dealing with ruthless lawyers. Some of them are very focused on ending complaints and are solution-focused for a settlement, wanting as little disruption and lawyer fees costs for their clients as possible. This is when win-win solutions, early on, are very possible, and improper conduct complaints aren’t even on the radar.

Posted on

Compensation Amount

Getting compensation for your child who was harmed, is one of the reasons parents file complaints. Certainly not the only reason. There are lots of ways that your child can benefit beyond compensation. However, for this blog let us focus on the monetary benefits.

Historically, education cases have always been low in terms of what the tribunal has awarded. I have seen some cases that were quite surprising to me how much an adult got for not being able to bring a stroller into a store or having an appointment cancelled. Here we are talking about children and the impacts on them that could last a lifetime, and children don’t seem to be compensated enough. It seems a little off to me. This is an area that I think needs attention, but in this case, Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237, there is some hope.

It was $5,000 for serious harm from the dates April 24 and June 27, 2019.

$5,000 for 64 days. AND this was only for one class out of 8 classes that took place every other day. Previously before this it was $4,000 and $10,000 that spanned years.

Previous cases, older cases, were Moore and Jubran. These were the only other public education cases for which complainants were awarded amounts that I am aware of in BC.

BC Human Rights Clinic has an awards chart that shows how much compensation has been given. This document was updated on April 3rd, 2025

The Moore case: Compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect was for $10,000 for a time period that was years.

Jubran v. Board of Trustees, 2002 BCHRT 10: Compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect was $4,000. This was for years of bullying and harassment.

These cases are older. The tribunals’ compensation amounts have been increasing, which they have acknowledged.

When it comes to an amount, it is important to note:

Spielberger v. Sofo Kitchens Ltd., 2025 BCHRT 1

160]      I start by noting that the Tribunal is not bound by its past decisions regarding how much compensation it orders for injury to dignity. However, I will keep Gardner in mind. I will also keep in mind that Gardner is ten years old, and that the value of the award in it must be viewed considering inflation.

[161]      In deciding an appropriate amount of compensation, I am guided by the factors considered in Gichuru v. The Law Society of British Columbia (No. 9) 2011 BCHRT 185, which include the time and nature of the discrimination, the period and frequency of the discrimination, any vulnerability of the complainant, the impact of the discrimination upon the complainant, and the totality of the relationship between the complainant and respondent: at para. 260; upheld in 2014 BCCA 396.

*******

Settlement will go into a Trust Account

It is also important to note that the money you get for your child will need to go into a trust account. This trust account will be managed until they are 19 years old by a government trust organization. If you get money from a hearing, it too will need to go into a trust account that you will need to manage until they are 19 years old. You can take money out before they are 19 years old; it just needs to be logged and recorded what was spent on the child.

********

More than just Compensation

When you go into a mediation meeting, you can ask for certain things that you would never get out of a decision from the tribunal.

What does your kid need? What supports do you want for them at school?

Do you want policy? Do you want the schools to change an administrative procedure? What other kind of systemic changes do you think are important?

There are things beyond just compensation that may be very helpful for your child and your community.

Mediation Meetings

Mediation meetings are a cost-risk analysis. They are trying to determine how expensive they think you are going to be and what the chances are of you succeeding.

Be prepared. Write it out in terms of what you feel is fair based on the criteria above. It sounds horrible, but you are going to need to articulate the level of harm. You may find this uncomfortable or maybe liberating, but if you hold back, you may be compensated less because of it. As usual, the more evidence you have to support this, the better of a position you will be in. Schools assess everything in terms of risk management and liability.

Settlements are typically higher than what you will get at a hearing. The closer you get to a hearing than if you settle early on, the amount tends to increase as well. It just means that you need to be prepared and do the work for a hearing, just in case. You can also hire a lawyer to assist you in just the mediation part.

There are a lot of reasons people file human rights complaints.

  • People want change – advocacy reasons
  • They want their harm acknowledged
  • They want certain things to happen that they can get from a settlement
  • They want to ensure the schools are providing reasonable accommodations, and filing a human rights complaint forces schools to consider the damage period.
  • They want the discrimination to stop, and for schools not to do this to anyone else or at least think twice before they do.
  • They are pissed off and need to do something, anything, but have what their child experienced just swept under the rug

Lots of good reasons.

Compensation is one of those reasons, too. Most people I know want a specific amount because of the acknowledgment piece, or they want their kids to have counselling/tutoring or other services to undue the harm that has occurred. They feel their kids are owed a repair. Rightly so.

I highly suggest you do your research and look at other decisions and what was awarded to people. It will give you a good idea of the range to expect. Also, what arguments were used to justify why it was high or why it was lower. Looking at decisions when the lawyers offer a with prejudice offer and people reject them, can be interesting and eye-opening.

Here are instructions on how to look up case law. Or you can just go to the awards chart that the BC Human Rights Clinic on their website in the resource section, and they link the cases in the chart too! Very helpful.

For more information on the mediation meeting process, BC Human Rights Tribunal has this mediation policy page.

Family Status – Filing a Complaint for YOU

You are representing your child in a human rights complaint. This is not a family human rights complaint. If you want to be compensated for your lost days of work, and/or emotional harm than you will need to file a separate complaint for yourself under family status.

For more detailed information on this click here.

Posted on

Post-Secondary Human Rights Complaint, Settlement Offer

This is a case that involves a nursing student at a post-secondary institution.

Student D v. Selkirk College, 2025 BCHRT 178

[2]               Student D was a student in the Bachelor of Nursing program at Selkirk College. She alleges the College discriminated against her in the area of services on the grounds of mental and physical disability contrary to s.8 of the Code. She says the College failed to reasonably accommodate her disabilities which negatively affected her academic performance, and she ultimately withdrew from the program.

                                                                                  ******

This is a dismissal application, but it’s a specific type of dismissal application. The respondents offered her a settlement offer that can be disclosed to the tribunal. It is called a “with prejudice” offer.

If you offer a settlement offer to the respondents and you don’t want it to be disclosed to the tribunal, you need to write “without prejudice” at the top of your email/offer.

If you turn down a with prejudice offer, the respondents can file a dismissal application that ultimately forces you to accept the offer. The only way to not accept it is to convince the tribunal that your case is worthy of the time and resources of the tribunal for a hearing, as it will benefit the public interest and potentially make case law advancements. Or you can just not accept it and walk away with nothing.

This case can also give you ideas on what kinds of things you can ask for in a mediation meeting.

This is an important case to read for young adults in post-secondary.

                                                                               ********

[7]               Student D has achondroplasia, generalized anxiety disorder, and auditory processing disorder. In September 2017, she started a four-year Bachelor of Nursing program at the College. Student D says that between April 28, 2020, and July 14, 2020, during the practicum portion of her program, she made requests for accommodation to her instructors and school administrators who failed to provide her the requested accommodations. Student D withdrew from her program on September 21, 2020.

                                                                            *********

This is what she was offered, which she turned down. She felt the amount was too low. And so now the tribunal has to make a decision about allowing it to continue to a hearing or not. Respondents cannot file this kind of dismissal if the hearing is within the next 4 months.

                                                                                              *******

[9]               On February 3, 2025, the College made a with prejudice offer to settle the complaint on the following terms:

a.    The amount of $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

b.    The amount of $24,394.30 for lost wages, less statutory deductions, representing a delay to potential graduation from the Bachelor of Nursing program by one year, less her average annual earnings as a care aide and educational assistant, and less a 30% contingency to account for the potential non-graduation from the program.

c.     The College will provide Student D with a letter of regret acknowledging the distress she experienced in the program.

d.    The College will provide a revised transcript replacing any “fail”, “no credit granted” or “partial credit granted” notations with a “withdrawal” notation. The College will also provide a transfer letter endorsing Student D as a candidate for any nursing programs in other post-secondary institutions.

e.    The College will commit to reviewing its Accessibility Services for Students program and making any updates it deems necessary.

                                                                             *********

The tribunal dismissed her human rights complaint and allowed her to accept the offer she originally rejected, if she wanted it. You can read more about how they analyzed the appropriate settlement amount in the case. I haven’t pulled any of that out for this blog. Fighting this type of dismissal is low risk because you can always accept the same offer, even if you lose the dismissal application. Sometimes these are posted publicly, and some dismissal applications are private. But this is also a great way to get a public record of your case.

                                                                           *********

[10]           The offer remains open for acceptance notwithstanding the filing of the application to dismiss the complaint. The offer will expire two weeks following the Tribunal’s decision on the application to dismiss.

                                                                                   *********

And the decision from the tribunal is….

👇👇👇

[47]           The Tribunal routinely hears and decides cases that concern disability accommodation in educational settings, and I am not persuaded that the circumstances of the present case engage broader public policy issues that warrant proceeding in the face of a reasonable settlement offer. Further, considerable resources of the parties and the Tribunal would be required for a hearing of this matter. The Tribunal encourages parties to resolve their disputes in good faith on a voluntary basis. The College’s settlement offer contains terms that the Tribunal cannot order at a hearing, such as issuing a letter of regret, providing a revised transcript, and the transfer letter. The College’s offer also includes terms to ensure the discrimination does not occur again by reviewing its accessibility policies and training its faculty. Under the circumstances, I find that allowing this complaint to proceed would not further the purposes of the Code.