This page has cases unrelated to education, but are helpful nonetheless. They provide us with information. You can use case law to support your arguments. You can cite case law when sending in your written submissions (written responses/applications) to the tribunal that are not in education but still helpful.
********
Discrimination Test
Boyce v. City of Maple Ridge, 2026 BCHRT 201
https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/…/decisions/recent/2026-bchrt-201
“The Code is not meant to protect against all bad treatment, only bad treatment that is connected to a protected characteristic. If a person did not have (or was not perceived to have) a Code protected characteristic at the time they experienced the adverse treatment, then there was no protected characteristic that was acting as a barrier to their ability to fully and with dignity access an area of life protected by the Code.”
Takeaway: 
1. The school may have documentation your child has a disability, but even if they don’t….as long as they “perceive” them to have a disability, your child is still protected by the Human Rights Code.
2. You will have the burden to prove that the school was aware your child has a disability, or that they perceived them to have a disability. *** If you want to make sure the school is locked in for the first part of the discrimination test, provide a diagnosis letter to the school. For families of kids with Generalized Anxiety Disorder/ADHD etc that may have received a diagnosis not necessarily from Psycheducation assessments but from other professionals, giving them a copy of those letters from a doctor can be a huge help.
********
Fair Treatment for Self-Represented
I used this case in a document I made when the respondents were going to argue to remove some of my witnesses.
The tribunal member was well aware of her duty to make sure I had a fair hearing. Tribunal members have been flexible to people in the past, who are self-represented and disabled to navigate the process. See this case.
Taylor v Mallany, 2019 NLCA 25
[24] At paragraph 53 of the decision, Green J.A. notes that the Principles impose responsibility on judges, court officials, and members to the Bar to “ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment by the court” which includes “opportunities for all persons to understand and meaningfully present their case.” And further at paragraph 54, he suggests that the Principles should be treated as having some legal effect:
[25] It is through this lens that the issues underlying the duty of fairness in this appeal must be considered. It is not sufficient to consider whether the process was fair in the abstract, but whether the process was fair in this particular case, especially in light of the Taylors’ status as self-represented litigants.
The Right to Make Submissions
[26] A fundamental element of the right to be heard is the right of a party to present their case to the decision-maker.
The Right to Notice
[46] Related to the right to be heard is the right to notice. A party can only be meaningfully heard if they are aware of what issues are being considered by the decision-maker.
*********