Here are two cases that look at whether the school district provided reasonable accommodations to remove the barriers and provide access to education.

One is a dismissal decision that allows it to proceed to a hearing in BC. Another is an out of province case that is a hearing decision from Manitoba. Both are important to be aware of as both cases can be used in written submissions.

First case, BC

Child (by Parents) v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2025 BCHRT 85

More important learnings from human rights decisions!!

This is a dismissal application. Parts of their complaint were dismissed but the part that is continuing is the allegation that the school didn’t incorporate professional recommendations into their child’s IEP.

The human rights tribunal is accepting this as a valid complaint, and it is proceeding. This case can be used to enhance your advocacy.

[66] The Child alleges that the School Board lost or did not read many of the reports that were provided to them, and that as a result, the recommendations contained in those reports were not incorporated into their IEPs. Therefore, they say, the Child’s disabilities were not properly accommodated. The Child says that had the IEPs been developed in line with the medical and psychoeducational recommendations contained in the reports provided to the School Board, their Parents would not have had to intervene with private support services in order to keep the Child at grade level. They say that because the recommendations in the reports were not incorporated into the Child’s IEPs, the Parents were required to provide the Child with tutoring, vision therapy, and auditory therapy, along with other interventions.

[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”.

[72] While the School Board took steps through the IEPs to accommodate the Child, based on the materials before me, I am not persuaded that they are reasonably certain to prove they took all reasonable and practical steps to remove the disability-related barriers faced by the Child. This allegation will proceed.

We already know from X by Y v. Z that it doesn’t matter what their grades are, its whether the school district removed the barriers to access their education equitably

[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.

As always, I extend much appreciation and thanks to the parents who are navigating this system and bringing these decisions forward.

Putting the pieces together

Accepted human rights complaints

• If a child is denied an EA
• If professional recommendations are not incorporated into an IEP (The above case)
• If parents are not properly consulted on IEP plans – and TRB complaints uphold this as well
• Family Status – if parents are harmed during the process. Schools do have a service to the parents. Must file within one year.  

Second case, Manitoba

This parent lost her human rights complaint and filed a judicial review. She lost that as well and has had to pay costs. Paying costs is not something that you risk when filing a human rights complaint, but something you do risk when you file a judicial review. This is thousands of dollars, possibly $20,000 in BC. (Please consult with a lawyer if you are filing a judicial review.)

Wells v. Manitoba (Human Rights Commission) et al., 2025 MBKB 86

[1]         Maxine Wells (Ms. Wells or the applicant) is a tireless advocate for her son who had learning disability challenges as a student in the Border Land School Division (the Division).  Ms. Wells was in regular contact with his teachers, school administration and Division personnel[1] regarding his learning challenges and how they should be addressed.  Often, there were disagreements about his needs and how they should be addressed.  Several times, Ms. Wells retained independent specialists to assess her son’s learning disabilities and provide recommendations on how to accommodate those learning disabilities in the school setting.  Ms. Wells says that the Division was often dismissive of the recommendations of these specialists.  This became increasingly frustrating for her as she wanted to ensure her son had the best possible outcome in an education framework that did not, from her perspective, appear to be giving him the opportunity to succeed.  She says that ultimately, her son did not achieve the level of learning he could have had the Division followed the recommendations of the specialists as she urged them to do.

[8]         The thrust of Ms. Wells’ application is that she disagrees with the Division’s assessments of her son’s needs and the accommodation measures implemented which, in her opinion, were often not aligned with those of outside clinicians.  More specifically, she submitted that:

• the Division did not accept assessments provided by experts;
  
  (etc.)

**********

The conclusion is interesting as the tribunal saw the teachers as the experts to dismiss the outside experts. I think everything in the paragraph below is interesting. This is how the tribunal views the education staff and the power they support.

We have a case in BC where a parent’s human rights complaint continued partly because outside recommendations were not considered. However, here is a tribunal hearing decision which is different than the legal test for a dismissal.

*********

[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.

**********

Recommendations from professionals are just that, recommendations. This tribunal has asserted that it’s up to the teachers (the district) which recommendations to implement and when. They still need to be able to justify it as reasonable. As removing a barrier and providing “a ramp”, a reasonable ramp. And they will need to provide EVIDENCE to the tribunal that they have done this.

The school districts being aware that they need to provide evidence of reasonable accommodations is why they are aware and concerned about their damage period, when they find out you have filed or are considering filing a complaint.

An important part of the duty to accommodate process isn’t just the discrimination test. The other side of the coin is the reasonable justification test.

The tribunal has repeatedly put the professional responsibility in the hands of education staff to be the ones to figure out how to remove the barriers for disabled students so their education is accessible. Ok then, so do it.

Always remember, they have the responsibility of investigating and figuring out what the barriers are and creating a plan to remove them. Meaningful inquiry.

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

*******

[120] Ultimately, on a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the District discharged its duty to accommodate X in his grade 2 year by reviewing the Diagnosis Report, developing an IEP, making various support people and strategies available that were incorporated into the classroom and outside, reviewing progress and changes, and adapting its approach in response……

[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.

********