Tag: #Advocacy

Posted on

“We Deny Each and Every Allegation”

When you file a human rights complaint, and if it gets accepted, you will receive an email notifying you that your complaint is proceeding.

The school will get the email as well. This is the first time they will be contacted by the BC Human Rights Tribunal. They will have an opportunity to submit a “response” a few weeks later.

It will be multiple pages long, and they will be defending themselves. Listing all the reasons that your complaint is not true, or if it is true, their decision-making is justified.

Just a heads up. It is very difficult to read.

If you need to move heavy furniture, read this right before you have to do so, and you’ll be done in a jiffy.

Some of it will be downright ridiculous to you.

At some point early on in the response, you will see the sentence “We deny each and every allegation”.

I read that sentence, and I swear, something snapped and changed in me forever.

I didn’t know this at the time, but this gets sent to every single parent.

I have seen a lot of documents from parents across this country, and this type of sentence is in every single one. Even when they know they are guilty, it doesn’t matter. I would be shocked if this sentence didn’t show up in your response.

Now. I have some thoughts on this.

I am not sure how this sentence started or who thought this would be a good idea to send to people a long time ago, but sending this to an already irate parent is not the most intelligent thing to do. In fact, you are shooting yourself in the foot as far as I am concerned.

I can tell you that after my eyeballs reached the end of this sentence, I had decided that I was taking my case to a hearing. And, I stuck to it. If I ever needed to refill my gas tank, I just re-read this one line. I was refuelled and back in action.

What I read from that sentence was this:

“Dear Kim. You have been cordially invited to attend a hearing. We do hope you will attend. We look forward to the duel.”

And my response was

“Sounds splashing. I shall be there!”

If you want to pick a fight with a mama bear, please do send this to them. I wish you good luck. The blessings will rain down upon you.

For the parents reading this shit, just know, they have to write something. They certainly are not going to send a response that says…. “ummm yup, guilty, we actually did everything they said. We thought we would get away with it…. but gosh… I guess not. Guilty!”

They will take slices of “truth” and state them as they are the most relevant important facts known to humankind. Just because they are writing stuff down doesn’t mean it is true, doesn’t mean they have evidence to back up what they are saying and doesn’t mean their arguments are strong. They could be very legally weak. For example, “XXXXX passed the class.” Meanwhile, we all know it’s because you hired a tutor. You get the idea. Or “XXXXX never asked for ________.” Meanwhile, we know that they never asked for anything because they were terrified.

But that’s what they get paid the big bucks for. (Insert eye roll)

We run on anger.

Thanks for pissing me off. xoxo. That was an excellent strategy. Cheers!

I now read that sentence and crack up. I need it on a t-shirt. It’s incredible how different I feel about these things as I look back in time, years later. Lots of things are shifting as time moves along.

So, if it propels you forward, then awesome. Read it hundreds of times.

If it’s anxiety-producing, every single person gets it. It’s not personal. It’s just one of their standard, boring, meaningless sentences. Them denying things…. heavens to Betsy. Shocking. They just plunk it in.

Posted on

Advocating for Systemic Change

There is a comedian out there who has a really smart and funny skit. “People will die for their country, but they wont do math for their country.” Dying for your country is easy, doing math is hard.

In concept, heading out into battle for your country is glamorous. People have statues built on their heroics and they get metals. It’s emotionally driven, and adrenaline pumping. Doing math, studying and consistently quietly working hard is unseen, and long term visionary thinking. Systemic change takes years. It takes doing “math” for your community. The building of relationships, the consistent unseen work, and sustainability over time. No statues. Maybe some people recognize your greatness, but it is generally uncongratulated work.

I want to talk about how to advocate for systemic change.

To place myself in this topic: I have a degree in Human Relations from Concordia University, Montreal. This is a degree in how people function in teams, families and organizations and how they can be healthy or toxic.

Friction in groups is very important for creativity and productivity. Every team will reach a conflict stage, and when managed well, teams of can be very successful. Having a diverse group of voices, lives experience and expertise is essential for fighting off groupthink. Which is a death sentence for teams that are connected to social policy.

There are open teams. Ones that allow feedback and the external environment to interact with it. Communication will flow in and out.

There are closed teams. Ones that build a wall and lock the doors. An example would be a cult.

It takes a long time to build successfully functioning teams. The most fundamental element to successful groups is TRUST. Firecracker groups start big and are full of energy, but explode and burn out.

Social change requires building credibility and trust with the community as a whole. It requires understanding how everyone is connected. The history of how we got here, what has historically worked and failed. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants who have paved paths for us. We learn from our history, how we have had success, failed, and pivoted. There is an element of risk in being willing to fall flat on your face and get back up and keep trying. Looking for the lessons. Listening to disabled voices in disability advocacy has always been key. Having a growth mindset, humility, integrity, a willingness to fail and keep going is a solid foundation for long term advocacy.

For a social movement, all established community groups need to come together and work together as ONE.

I am reposting my page on Understanding Systemic Change that I wrote years ago, originally on my Speaking Up BC website.



Let’s do “math” for our community and our children.



*******

Understanding Systemic Change

Some people when they advocate can reach a point when they are beyond frustrated, angry and bitter. Some people have decided to lash out at other people. The very people they are in the trenches with. They end up making it harder and more emotionally draining for parents who are advocating. I don’t think they realize the impact and how upsetting it is for other parents to hear their comments. Crabs in the bucket. My perception is that there is a lack of understanding of how human systems work, and how systemic change occurs and they are frustrated because how they think they should be able to make systemic change occur, isn’t occurring. The wider the gap between our expectations and reality, the more depressed or angry we will become.

I can’t fit everything in this blog about how human systems work, so for this blog I am going to focus on macro-level and micro-level aspects. Macro-level systems are the big ones. The government bodies that include hundreds and thousands of people. They are our political system, the structure of our economy, the structure from the Constitution of Canada and the impact on our system, democracy, our education systems with public schools, private schools, online schools etc. The large groups of multiple moving parts that involve many complex layers, and are maintained by many layers of legislation, policy, and guidelines. Think of many many gears all locked together. They are all moving. Wish to change one gear, and they will all be impacted. These systems have formal codes of conduct and contracts. Also, the unwritten social contracts and social rules that glues everyone together. These systems are tidal wave systems that do not get pushed off course unless something massive happens. I haven’t even mentioned the topic of power. That’s a whole other blog. Systems that are oppressive like to remain that way, unless it’s detrimental to themselves to not change.

Micro-level changes are things that happen on one-to-one individual levels. Individual social interactions. A 20-minute conversation is a micro-level interaction. This is when we advocate with our child’s teacher and they learn something new about ADHD and now they are adapting their teaching and accepting of movement breaks because they understand things differently.

Some people think, that if we only change this one law, or have this one human rights case, or if we change one piece of legislation then everything will be solved for all of the following generations.

I can promise you, if this is how you think, this is where your pain is because that will never happen. Change will never happen because of one person. Ever. We are dealing with way too many macro-level systems all connected and interacting with each other, AND we are dealing with way too many micro-level individual interactions of ableism and lack of information about disabilities. One person is not going to swoop in and solve it all. The education system provincially has hundreds of thousands of people working in these systems. There is not one solution. If we are waiting for a hero to ride in on a horse and save us all, we’ll be waiting for a very long time.

It takes teams. Plural. Many teams. And in our society, it is going to take multiple teams all working together with a common goal for a sustained period of time. These teams are going to have to cover ALL different areas and all different aspects of the multiple gears.

There are 4 elements to a social movement.

  1. There is a trigger event that inspires an intense reaction from the community
  2. ALL of the already established community groups come together and work together as ONE
  3. They have a common simple message that the public can understand. (Eg. Black Lives Matter)
  4. The advocacy of this one common message and connection of all of the groups needs to be for a long sustained period of time.
    .

That is a social movement.

Think of the women’s movement in the 70’s. We still have women’s issues today. But women entering the workforce was quite the shift that started it all off. The different professions women are working in today is because of that social movement.

We need to work at both a macro-level and a micro-level. Even if we had a piece of legislation change or a fantastic policy manual from the government we are still going to be dealing with the individual people who are ableists and want power over. Any change coming from the top down and they will figure out ways to get around it, ignore it, and we will still be struggling with the same shit.

It’s not that we just need to get EA standards and everything will change.

It’s not that we just need to get legislation changed.

It’s not that we just need this one class action human rights case.

We need everyone. We need ALL of it. It is all hands on deck. We need every disability organization, we need all parents, we need trustees, we need educators, we need PAC’s, we need unions, we need everyone working in their own corners advocating for accessibility and inclusion.

Anything less than that, and we will not be able to move the needle enough to notice change in this generation.

It takes a micro-level AND a macro-level response.

Social change, where people really feel that the needle moved, that is noticeable… usually takes 3 generations. But not always…

We are in a catch-22 when it comes to legislation changes. The government won’t enact legislation or funding commitments to items that they feel the majority of their constituents don’t want. Their goal is to get re-elected. If they don’t get re-elected they can’t pursue any of their goals. So, if the public doesn’t care about kids with disabilities and their access to an equitable education…. the government isn’t going to put a massive amount of money into that. They need to make their constituents happy. We also know that society is generally ableist. And oppressive. We are also dealing with evolutionary instincts. Humans are complex. We are a mix of beautifulness and survival instincts. When resources are tight, we want them for ourselves.

Everyone’s advocacy efforts are all part of the work. It all matters. Every single one of you. There is no one single solution or even one single group that is going to just fix everything in a couple of years. It takes massive amounts of people ALL advocating in our own corners. Micro-level and macro-level advocacy work. We can’t just change legislation. We need to change the hearts and minds of everyone to uphold and embrace the legislation even if it does change.

Having said all of this:”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has” -Margaret Mead

Very true. It all starts somewhere. Seeds get planted by small groups that grow over time.

We need the wild risk takers who don’t follow the beaten path, to envision something more, to push past what has ever been done before, to create cracks in the system and allow new growth to occur.

If you are someone who is belittling other parents’ advocacy efforts. Telling them there is no point to any of their work, and that the system will never change. Which is actually impossible, because systems always change. They are maintained by people and society changes all the time. Please, and I say this with love in my heart. Please find counselling or keep your comments to yourself. The human rights process may have been a waste of some people, which I am truly sorry. The human rights system enforces the Human Rights Code and creates the Duty to Accommodate which is the strongest piece of advocacy tools that we have as parents, and those cases that advanced the Code were because of parents who sacrificed. You are not helping anyone by belittling all of parents’ advocacy and telling them there is no point. You are now the one making this worse for them. When you make statements telling people to give up, you are now oppressing them. I have zero tolerance for that.

This is a marathon. Not a sprint.

It’s a team sport. We all need to train individually but run together.

Let’s build each other up and be supportive.

Here are blogs on systemic change.

Systemic Imperfection
Policy – “soft policing”
Groupthink….Does it Exist in School Districts and on Boards of Education
What Does Ableism Look Like in Schools…It Looks Like This!
Who does Society care about?
Why Can’t we Just Sue the Government?
Families are Advocating – A Year in Review for HRT & OIPC and Media
“this family needed help beyond what I’m trained for” (para 58)
Systemic Impacts of Scarcity in Education

Posted on

Riddle: Who has the final decision-making power?

Here is the riddle.

  1. School districts are the “clients” in human rights complaints. They are the ones we are filing against. We write out their names as being the respondents on complaint forms. They are the ones who show up to the hearing as the client. The secretary-treasurer will.
  2. Typically, clients hire lawyers. They are the ones who provide “instructions” to their lawyers. Lawyers can give them advice, but the clients are the ones who have the final say – decide to accept settlement offers or not.
  3. The School Protection Program (SPP) is the insurance for the school district for human rights complaints. They cover all costs, legal fees and settlement payments all paid for by insurance. (paragraph 2) Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No.9), 2025 BCHRT 310
  4. The SPP appoints the lawyers and pays for the legal fees of the lawyers.
  5. The lawyers send their invoices to the SPP to get paid for their work hours by insurance.
  6. So first part of the riddle, who is really the client? The school district or the one who pays the bills?
  7. BUT the SPP will also not agree to pay for their legal fees if a client they are covering for doesn’t accept a reasonable offer. As written in this decision. “within a couple of days I got a call from the insurance company and they said ‘you turned down a very reasonable settlement offer, we’re not going to cover your expenses anymore, you’re on your own.” (paragraph 6 & 7) Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 8), 2025 BCHRT 64. So clients cannot just decide to run parents into the ground without legal reason – or the insurance wont cover.
  8. So who has the final decision making power? The school districts will rely on the lawyers for their legal assessment of whether it is a reasonable settlement or not, or whether there is grounds to keep going and spend more legal fees than the settlement offer. (Insert eye roll) ** This is where it doesn’t make sense to me that an insurance company would go along with this. I take it when this happens it must mean their cost-risk assessment of people is wrong. They underestimate people.
  9. Insurance company relies on the lawyers for their assessment. They have read ALL the emails, know all the details of the case.
  10. The insurance company doesn’t attend the mediation meetings. So a risk analysis is done by who?
  11. Who profits on having as many billable hours as possible? Answer: Lawyers
  12. Partner status in a law firm is partly based on your ability to bring in clients and increase billable hours. You also benefit personally when the law firm does well, beyond just your salary.
  13. Who personally profits from how much law firms make from legal fees? Answer: Partners in law firms.

.
So, who has the final decision making power?

Who contributes their input into the cost-risk analysis of parents?

School districts? – relying on lawyers for their expertise and law analysis and also relying on the SPP for insurance coverage. Doesn’t sound like they are ones with most sway in this decision making process.

Or is the lawyers with partner status? The ones who personally profit from our human rights complaints?

The answer to this riddle is? To a varying degree, all three parties contribute.

I guess if the district just really wanted to settle and have it be over they could or should be able to pull the client card and say, these are my instructions, we want to settle. The lawyers, in theory, would need to do what they are instructed. There isn’t anyone from SPP that shows up to a mediation meeting.

My money is on the ones with the most sway – the lawyers. The Partners. The senior lawyers on the case. The ones who personally profit from the most billable hours.

Anyone else see the conflict here?

OH, and apparently the only ones keeping track of how much legal fees cost is the insurance company and the law firm. Not the school district and not the Ministry of Education.

Anyone else see the additional conflict here?

Posted on

Orders To Attend

Hot tip!

Something to consider as you approach a hearing. You want to make sure everyone is going to be able to attend, and hasn’t booked a vacation or a surgery, etc. You want to make sure they are available!

You can submit a request for “Orders to Attend”

Go to the website on the BC Human Rights Tribunal website to their FORMS section.

Scroll down and find the section on Orders to Attend a Hearing

Fill out the form for each person on your witness list. You can do this 5-6 months before the hearing.

THEY DO NOT LIKE THIS!

You have every right to go up to each person and serve this to them yourself. The school district will want to do it instead. Up to you if you want to allow that. They will need to confirm to you in writing when it has been done. (Whether they do it, or are holding off, who knows….)

But I can tell you, if you want to send them into a panic, this is one of those chess moves that will get their attention.

If they fight you on providing any of the individual information you are requesting, EMAIL YOUR CASE MANAGER ASAP.

Posted on

When you no longer TRUST the school district

A breach of trust at the highest level.

One of the biggest impacts, I think to parents’ mental health when serious issues arise at school is the broken trust. The realization that the people you entrusted your child with 5 days a week, 6 hours a day, actually don’t have their best interests at heart. Or they have no idea what they are doing. It turns out they are less trained and educated on disability and mental health than we thought. They will put the school’s liability needs and staff needs first. We are shocked that people are lying to us. We can’t wrap our heads around it.

Parents often aren’t able to articulate why they have been so driven to search for answers, or advocate so hard, to email constantly or to file a complaint. When it is named and identified as broken trust, the injustice of a boundary violation, it hits the nail on the head. They understand what has been driving them. It all starts to make sense. Then there is the injustice of it all.

There are two harms. The first harm of the incident or what has happened. The second harm is how the school handled it.

How do you send your child back to school after there has been a breach of trust? Some incidents are very serious. A child has been restrained, and they had no idea, only finding out months later. You had no idea your child was being locked in a room for hours, until you showed up at the school unexpectedly. They were injured, police were called, or other incidents, with no explanation.

After the incident, the school goes into defence mode instead of repair.

Cover-up instead of transparency and accountability.

It really can send people spiraling. If your mental health has tanked because of what is happening at school and how the school is responding to you, you are most certainly not alone. Not only do our children need help when they lose their trust in their school, but so do we. When students refuse to go to school, they can feel fear and not feel safe. Underneath all of that, I think it can be a sign that serious trust has been broken. That even if they feel they will need help, they know they won’t get it, and they are on their own.

It doesn’t need to be a single incident just months or years of neglect.

We can end up being trapped. Circling over and over on unresolved issues.

When our children start school, we AUTOMATICALLY trust the adults in the system. They are all knowing. No one questions it.

Especially what hurts is wondering if we didn’t trust the adults would we have made different choices? Would things have been different for them? Did they suffer more because we were so ignorant? Could we have protected our children better? If that isn’t one way to torture ourselves, I don’t know what is. The societal brainwashing message that parents should be automatically trusting the education system needs to come to an end.

We can trust them. But they need to earn it. With their behaviour. Not their words.

Or can we ever trust them?

Posted on

Building Advantage – Hearing Preparation

This post is going to be for the parent/caregivers who want to take their case to a hearing. If this is where you are going to find your peace, I want to help to get you there. This post is for you.

There is a concept that lawyers are taught – try and get every little advantage you can. Even if it is ever so small. Something as simple as even requesting a page extension for your submission. When dealing with the school district’s lawyers, don’t let anything slide. The belief is that many small advantages will build over time and it will benefit you eventually. It could be just what tips you over the line and you win. Every little thing, all of the details, they all will build your case. Don’t ever think…oh I’ll just let it go. It’s not a big deal. When preparing for a hearing, everything is a big deal. Fight to keep all the witnesses you want. Enter in all the documents you want. Take ALLL the time you need. They will fight you on things. Don’t give in.

There was a time when I could have let things slide, but I didn’t. I filled a specific type of application, which I didn’t “win”. However, the tribunal member obviously saw merit in what I was submitting. Not only in their response did they tip their hat to the work I had done so far, they gave me a gift I never asked for, wasn’t expecting, and something they didn’t have to do. They were levelling the playing field between a self-represented parent and the lawyers. They saw the injustice in what I was reporting. It was because I didn’t let anything slide that I got this gift, which were two legal tests for my hearing. If I proved either one of these legal tests, I won my case. It gave me a target.

So on the fifth day of the hearing, I believe I won one of the legal tests. We’ll call it legal test on the left. I could tell the exact moment the tribunal member and the respondent lawyer realized I met one of the legal tests. They couldn’t control their body language. They just reacted. It wasn’t subtle either. I can recall that moment like it is a clip from a movie.

However, in the end the tribunal member went with legal test on the right. The legal test on the left would have helped a very very small group of students, only for those in unique situations. The legal test on the right, would impact everyone. I believe she was trying to make the most impact with the evidence she had before her. So, the tribunal member went with legal test on the right. I have absolutely peace about that. All I wanted from this decision was a specific “duty” and I got that and more. I also think she was protecting me from a Judicial Review, with a more solid legal analysis. Regardless, the story ends well.

If I let certain things slide from the lawyers, and I didn’t submit that application, I never would have gotten those two legal tests, which were a guiding light to me.

Don’t. Let. Anything. Slide.

Every little funky-monkey move they (lawyers/school staff) make, or incorrect information written in an email, don’t let it slide. Because years later if they made a statement that your kid is doing fine, and you didn’t respond to that, they may use that as evidence that you agreed your kid was doing fine.

There is an exception to the don’t let anything slide rule…. if you think they are just poking at you to get a reaction, absolutely let those things slide. Depends on how obvious it is or what they are doing, you may be able to do something with all of that later. You may want to file an improper conduct complaint with the tribunal or file a complaint against them with the Law Society. Depending on how desperate they are, sometimes they may do things that are serious infractions. Lawyers have a Code of Conduct they must follow. Good to be aware. They aren’t allowed to play dirty.

If they think you are truly intending to bring your case to a hearing, you may notice that they will lay out little bread crumbs hoping you will pick it up, so they can engage with you. Weird stuff will start happening or things that are uncharacteristic of the district/school. They want to pull you in closer to them. If you want that hearing, I suggest you don’t pick them up.

The schools and lawyers will always underestimate you. In the beginning I have to admit, I was offended. I was insulted how little they thought of me. Then I realized, it helped me out a lot. If you want that hearing…let them underestimate you. They will be assuming that you will be settling a couple of weeks before a hearing. Let them think that. Stay under the radar. Then pop out hearing ready at the end. You may catch them a lot less prepared.

For the day to day advocacy, we don’t want to seem adversarial with our child’s school so we let the little things go. They know this. We are afraid of being picky. Or being annoying. Or being too much. They count on us feeling this way, and they take advantage of that.

They aren’t letting anything slide. They take every possible advantage they can. We can’t let anything slide either. Otherwise we risk losing a hearing we shouldn’t have, a weak settlement offer and/or possibly a successful dismissal application.

While navigating the BC Human Rights Tribunal speak up when you notice things aren’t fair, and ask lots of questions. Push the line. Ask for what you need. On the school level, speak up when they make statements about your child that you don’t agree with.

Just do it In writing. Of course.

ALL of the details matters. They all add up.

Posted on

Complaints are the Ultimate Protest

External complaint bodies are the only ones with investigative powers to look inside what is happening in the world of education.

Parents are the ones who have the ability to file a compliant and invite other professionals (mostly legal) into the districts to take a little lookie-loo.

These organizations have legislation behind them that gives them the power to force the school to hand over unredacted documents for their examination. Compel witnesses to be questioned. For teacher’s to explain themselves against teachers standards. Decisions get made – posted publicly. Journalists have access to these decisions and they write articles on them. They spread. Sometimes nationally.

This type of protest…compliant filing…is permanent. If nothing else, it creates data collected by the organizations. It informs them of what the issues are. We are seen. We aren’t invisible.

Ombudsperson BC – makes systemic strategic decisions based on the complaints being filed. The complaints lead the way. For example: The school exclusion investigation currently taking place.

Teachers Regulation Branch (Professional Conduct Unit) – department of the Ministry of Education can remove someone’s teacher’s license and ban them from the profession, suspend them, or send them for professional development. The professional development piece can even happen if the decision doesn’t get posted. The complaint stays in their file.

OIPC – Protectors of privacy but also allowing us to access documents they would never hand over.

BC Human Rights Tribunal – creates case law that sets the foundation and the framework with how the school needs to function, or face the consequences. Human rights complaints can be like a car crash for a school district. Depends on the type of complaint, the complexity, the fault of staff, and how far you take them through the process. They can incur direct and indirect costs. Legal fees are expensive. Their insurance will go up. There may be casualties (staff may leave or be forced to leave). There may be injuries (staff may experience health, emotional, mental, or financial harm). The district needs to deal with the aftermath.

When I started filing complaints, I found it to be so incredibly stressful, but at the same time found it oddly comforting. It gave me hope. It saved my sanity. Took the edge off. Gave me something to focus on. Somebody else needed to know what I knew.

It came down to this:

I will never prioritize the needs of adults with resources over a trapped child experiencing harm who has no escape, and can’t do anything but endure.

Not filing a complaint on an adult who is a paid professional because you don’t want to be the one to make them feel uncomfortable feelings, meanwhile your child is experiencing hell, doesn’t make sense to me. Sure, it doesn’t feel great, but I am not keeping silent and upholding up this system so you can feel comforted in your safe predictable environment. You want to shove this under the rug without getting a scratch. Ummm no!

This is the protest. When we give them all the chances in the world to make this right and they still don’t…this is the only power we have to try and fix things.

What really gets me is that if they feel like they can get away this shit, they will keep on doing it. That. I can’t handle.

Schools can be a little too good at prioritizing their own liability needs.

So when should we file?

I absolutely do suggest you give the school a chance to resolve this with you before you start filing complaints. It truly will be better for you and your child to get a quick resolution. Climb the ladder and go above the principal. Contact the district administrators. These complaints systems are SLOW.

However….some of things that people tell me… and what I know as well…. I mean… come on districts…. are you seriously not expecting a reaction? We aren’t looking for the power struggle. We aren’t.

I have never met a group of people so hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot, than I have with school administrators. Well.. some of them.

The people who are really good at their jobs are people who are focused on communicating and solutions. These are the people we love. These are the people the next generation needs.

The next generation also need advocates. Willing to protest.

From a systemic perspective. We need the risk takers. The wild ones ready to plow new paths that seem completely illogical. We need the quieter, relationship focused advocates building inch by inch. We need the backstage advocates with the networks and unknown conversations. Swaying power every so secretly.

These external complaint systems are far from perfect. They are also all we have. If we all just stopped engaging with them until they were perfect… we would be in serious trouble. The education system would truly see us all as door mats. Buzzy mosquitoes to flick off.

If you do choose to file a complaint. Please do your research. Each is a silo. Different legislation. Different outcome options and different amounts of power. You have options.

If filing a complaint is something you don’t want to do. You still have options. It is not all or nothing. Advocacy still continues. Persistently. Consistently.

Trust in your ability to know yourself. You will find the path that you want to take. The one that matches your advocacy style. All is good. Everyone is needed and all of the different styles. We balance each other out. This is a marathon. It’s a team sport. We train individually, but we run together.

Peace.

Posted on

Using AI While you Navigate the BC Human Rights Tribunal

You need to be VERY careful. The respondents could apply for costs against you and you may need to pay. AI can generate fake cases and this will harm you, not help you. (You may want to check to see if the lawyers are giving you fake cases. It has happened and lawyers have gotten into a lot of trouble over it.)

This case was posted just last week, Thursday January 15th, 2026. If you are interested in the case itself, you can click on the case link below and give it a read. However, I have pulled some key paragraphs regarding AI use.

RR v. Fraser Health Authority and others (No.3), 2025 BCHRT 287

[223]       The use of AI tools by parties to assist in the presentation of their cases has increased dramatically over the past several years. This has yielded both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, people who are self-represented before the Tribunal may have better access to information about legal tests and precedents, and how their specific situation may have been handled by the Tribunal in the past. On the negative side, it has become widely recognised that AI tools frequently generate false information, including fake cases, which can appear to be legitimate.  

[224]       Recently, the Tribunal has cautioned parties about the responsible and appropriate use of AI tools in the Tribunal’s process. In Duarte v. City of Richmond, 2024 BCHRT 347, the Tribunal stated that parties appearing before the Tribunal must carefully assess the information that AI tools produce before using such information in the Tribunal process, and that deliberate attempts to mislead the Tribunal, or even careless submission of fabricated information, can form the basis for an award of costs under s. 37(4) of the Code. The Tribunal emphasised that the integrity of the Tribunal’s process, and the justice system more broadly, requires parties to exercise diligence in ensuring that their engagement with artificial intelligence does not supersede their own judgement and credibility: at para 53.

[225]       Similarly, the BC Court of Appeal has recently held that although parties may use AI tools to assist them in the Court’s process, “like any litigation aid, the human behind the tool remains responsible for what comes before the Court”: Wu v. Murray, 2025 BCCA 365, at para. 14.

[226]       In the present case, I do not believe RR purposely attempted to mislead the Tribunal or the Respondents. Further, the Respondents have not alleged that RR has breached any Tribunal rule, order, or policy. The Tribunal does not yet have a published policy regarding the use of AI tools in its process, or information cautioning parties about its use. Although the Tribunal has published one decision that talks about the improper use of AI tools in closing submissions, I do not expect that RR, as a self-represented person without legal training, would have known about that decision.

[227]       Further, although RR included numerous fake cases in her submissions, and although the Tribunal and the Respondents were required to expend resources to establish that the cases were not valid, it cannot be said that either the Respondents, or the complaint resolution process more generally, were significantly prejudiced. In the present situation, it was RR who was most prejudiced by her use of the fake cases. This is because the Tribunal could not rely on the majority of the legal propositions she cited, or the factual contexts from the fake cases that she said resembled the context in her own complaint.

[228]       Ultimately, in these circumstances, I do not find that RR’s inclusion of the fake cases amounts to improper conduct warranting an order of costs. As such, I decline to exercise my discretion to award costs against RR for improper conduct. These reasons should not be taken to condone the inclusion of fake cases with a party’s submissions or suggest that in other cases an order for costs would not be appropriate.

*******

For a blog on financial risk navigating the BC HRT read: Is there a financial risk to filing a human rights complaint?

Posted on

Education Assistant – Employment Human Rights Complaint

I just want to preface this with a message before I even dive into this. Tribunal decisions do not reflect all of the information or the full story. They are not tell all novels. They only highlight the information that they need to legally analyze the discrimination decision. There could be all sorts of stuff that you will never publicly read about.

I don’t typically post decisions regarding education staff as my focus is for parents/caregivers and students. I did write a blog that I think is helpful for education staff filing human rights complaints. However, this decision is unique in that I don’t often see an Education Assistant (EA) human rights complaints in BC. This complaint raises some interesting issues and demonstrates some important procedural fairness accommodations that I think is important for parents/caregivers and students to know about who are considering navigating or currently navigating.

What started this complaint was her disagreement over an Autistic student being excluded from school. It then snowballed into harassment and bullying allegations from Ms. Broe to other staff and staff filed allegations against her.

[14]           Ms. Gowe worked with Ms. Broe at the Secondary School from 2010 to 2018. Ms. Gowe stated that Ms. Broe would often come to her with concerns, and she would try to provide clarification, support, and direction to Ms. Broe about her role. However, Ms. Gowe testified that around the fall of 2017, she became concerned that Ms. Broe was being overly critical of other staff and not staying within the scope of her role as a CEA. Ms. Gowe was also approached by several staff who reported concerns about Ms. Broe’s behaviour. Ms. Gowe began documenting these concerns in case Ms. Broe’s behaviour escalated further.

[15]           From Ms. Broe’s perspective, it was her job to do what she thought was right for the students even if this was perceived as her challenging the decisions of other staff. One example from this period was discussed by several witnesses at the hearing. Ms. Broe testified extensively about a decision made without her input to temporarily remove a student with Autism she worked with from the Secondary School. Ms. Broe felt this was the wrong decision and she needed to take action to return the student to school. Ms. Broe first brought her concerns to a special education teacher, who subsequently approached Ms. Gowe with her own concerns that Ms. Broe was being overly critical of another staff member involved in the decision. Ms. Broe then went to the school Principal and subsequently, feeling that someone had lied to the Principal about the student, reached out to the Director of Support Services at the District, Susan Thomson. Ms. Thomson met with Ms. Broe to listen to her concerns but informed her that the decision had been made by a “darn good team” and she needed to move on. Ms. Gowe testified that she was concerned that Ms. Broe’s actions around this issue were causing stress to other staff and indicated that Ms. Broe was “crossing boundaries” and unable to let things go.

I am aware that if you are an EA and you are advocating on behalf of a student, you can end up putting your head on the chopping block. Even though on paper, documents say that advocating is part of your job, “4.4 Advocate for the protection of the legal and human rights of students and their families“. In reality, that isn’t necessarily so. This is true for teachers as well. A teacher who blogs The Canary Collective wrote about her experience. Her first line in her first blog ” I never imagined that advocating for students would put my career at risk.” She says she was disciplined for advocating.

Regarding this case with the education assistant, I am not going to post all of the details of this case. You can read through it all. It sounds like it’s been a difficult experience for many people involved, including Ms. Broe. This is the third posted public decision in this case. You can find the other two on CanLii.

Broe v. The Board of Education of School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha) (No.3), 2025 BCHRT 295

I do want to highlight some hearing procedural items that occurred that I think is important be aware of, to know what is possible.

Flexibility – Procedural Fairness



[49]           Ms. Broe worked hard to represent herself in this complaint. I gave her significant latitude with her testimony, which took place over seven days. Similarly, she was allowed to extensively cross-examine the District’s witnesses, including a full day with Mr. Corday and more than a day with Mr. Burgoyne.

[50]           This was a difficult hearing for Ms. Broe and some of the witnesses involved. One witness expressed that it felt like Ms. Broe was using the Tribunal process to get “revenge” for the events in the complaint. It was clear that revisiting these events was stressful for Ms. Broe, and her emotions were often heightened. Although she had the opportunity to ask questions, and receive answers, from individuals involved in the events leading to this complaint, she expressed that some of the evidence was hurtful and caused her to question her sense of self.

[51]           We took additional breaks as necessary. Ms. Broe was also offered the option of having a support person sit with her throughout the hearing, however the person she identified was not available. Having expressed that seeing Mr. Corday in the virtual hearing room was a trigger for Ms. Broe, he agreed to attend the hearing with his camera turned off, with the exception of when he was providing his testimony.

[52]           Ms. Broe was also given significant latitude with respect to her documentary evidence. Before the hearing, I held a case conference with the parties where we discussed, among other things, how to admit documents at the hearing. I explained that any documents previously submitted to the Tribunal in preliminary applications would not form part of the hearing record, and if a party wanted to introduce a document at the hearing, they had to provide it as part of their book of documents. I confirmed these instructions in writing. The parties agreed to prepare a joint book of documents, which they submitted to the Tribunal a few days before the hearing began.

[53]           On the first day of the hearing, however, Ms. Broe sought to rely on documents that were not included in the joint book of documents and which she had not provided to the Tribunal for the purpose of the hearing. I reminded Ms. Broe of the instructions I had provided and directed her to review all her documents after we had adjourned for the day, submit them to the Tribunal and the District, and we would address any procedural fairness issues the following day. Ms. Broe agreed to follow these instructions.

[54]           The next morning however, she had not provided the documents and expressed that she had not slept and was confused about the process. We revisited the document issue the morning of the third day of hearing, as Ms. Broe again wished to rely on the documents she had not provided according to my instructions. The District’s legal counsel offered a solution: she would send the Tribunal a file containing all the documents Ms. Broe had disclosed to the District in advance of the hearing and would not object to these documents being admitted on the basis of inadequate notice. This allowed the Tribunal to access Ms. Broe’s documents, one by one, as Ms. Broe sought to introduce them. While there were still delays caused by this approach, the District’s cooperation in problem-solving allowed Ms. Broe to present the evidence that she had previously prepared in a manner that made sense to her. I thank legal counsel for her efforts in this regard.

*******

The tribunal is very aware for people filing complaints, this is not an easy process, and many people navigating the process have mental disabilities. It’s stressful and emotional. It is a legal process and by how our legal system is designed, it is adversarial. Most people don’t have lawyers or training in any legal education. Some people are incarcerated while they are navigating this process. For the tribunal, it is their role to make this process as fair as possible for both sides.

If you need something, don’t assume you will get a no. Always ask! You never know what is possible.

The final decision was that her complaint was dismissed. She didn’t meet the legal test for discrimination. You have the burden of proof to prove you were discriminated against, and then if you do that then the respondents need to try to prove that it was justifiable to the point of undue hardship.

*****

[57]           For the reasons that follow, I find that Ms. Broe has not met her burden of proving the elements of her case.

******

Tribunal members who write decisions will sometimes acknowledge that people have been harmed by the events they are describing in their cases. In this case, they did this as well. Which I always appreciate when they do that. I hope that acknowledgement and validation is helpful for people. Human rights decisions also state that negative experiences are not necessarily discrimination. This is a legal test about a very specific act. Discrimination. Not a moral test or honesty test about harmful or unfair events.

In this education case: X by Y v. Board of Education of School District No. Z, 2024 BCHRT 72

[110] ….I accept that these incidents which X relayed to Y were upsetting to X. I appreciate that the interactions may have fed into X’s general feelings of unease at school, but the fact alone that these events may have happened is not enough, in itself, to establish that X’s disability factored into them. Not all negative experiences are discrimination. Even accepting that these incidents occurred, I did not hear evidence that could establish, on a balance of probabilities, that X’s disability was a factor in the conduct of the adults involved in these interactions.

*******

As always, we learn from these decisions. The more information we have, the more we can make informed decisions. Sometimes filing a human rights complaint is incredibly helpful and sometimes it is not the best avenue to heal and process stressful events. Also, tribunal members can also make wrong decisions. I think for a lot of people filing complaints, they just can’t tolerate the injustice or unfairness of what they feel has happened, and they are compelled to do something about it. I hope for everyone involved in this case, they are able to heal, find some peace, and move on.

I wonder what happened to the student who was being excluded…

Posted on

Liability in Education

One aspect of education that was really hard for me to swallow and accept is the concept of liability and education operating as a business. They almost broke my heart over this. They make a lot of decisions based on liability. It’s depressing and sad really. Like seriously….the kids aren’t the priority?? (I was so innocent and trusting when my kids started school.)

They don’t make their decisions by prioritizing “doing the right thing”. This is about money. It’s about insurance.

If you ask them for an investigation into an incident. They will NOT try to find the truth and provide this information to you. They will be conducting their investigation it in a way that reduces their liability. They will hide needles in haystacks. Everything is very performative. They make themselves look busy for you, but nothing leads to any substance. They are experts at this. They do this over and over again. They have this down to a well-oiled machine. (Staff – this is for you too regarding your bullying/harassment complaints. Look for the signs!)

If you want to meet with certain people and they deny you that opportunity to do so, they are saying NO to you because it is too risky and they are concerned it might increase their liability. Depends on what you are dealing with, some situations staff really mess up – this isn’t your typical ignore IEP stuff, they will block you from talking to certain people. They don’t want this person to be on a future witness list at the tribunal. As soon as they engage with you through email or conversation, you could potentially make them a witness. They protect certain people.

They will not give you everything you want in your Freedom of Information request. You will need to file OIPC complaints or application for documents through the human rights process. They certainly will not just lay out all of the evidence to you because you asked for it. They will never provide you documentation that could possibly be used against them in the future. If you are just corresponding with them through email and not a complaint system, there is a very high possibility they will just ignore you.

If you want to have a conversation with them to figure out what on earth happened at school that lead to XYZ. You will not be provided with any information that could harm them later in a tribunal or court. They protect their staff. No government service or private company will ever just provide you the evidence you need to nail them. If you are getting evidence it is because you are prying it out of their cold hands.

We place so much incredible trust in these people. Our children are in their care 5 days a week. This is their present childhood and their future. We want to think that they have their best interest at heart. Teachers are not walking around with a liability lens, but the school administration absolutely are. And so is everyone above them.

This is what drives parents and caregivers up the wall. School admin will be vague, they will lie, they divert and cast blame on your child and you. This is why getting accountability is a fight. But certainly not impossible.

Upper management are constantly assessing you through a cost-risk lens. They have a team of lawyers who are a phone call and email away.

If you are stirring up shit all the way to the top, if they are concerned about you, they have probably already engaged their lawyers. Lawyers are involved way earlier than you will ever expect. And you are getting gaslit and manipulated for a reason. None of this stuff is by accident. They don’t just whoopsie lie to you.

The good news is. And there is good news.

Teach them what your currency is. Give my kids the supports they need and I wont be a risk to you. When they do give your kid the supports they need, they are not doing this because it makes them feel good. Well….maybe some people. But for the higher ups who don’t see your child every day and wouldn’t be able to pick them out of a line up. They are doing this because it is part of their job to reduce the schools liability. They are always considering their damage period. It even states that in the School Act, 95(3)(b) that school staff may need to pay the legal costs if someone sues the school board (human rights complaint) and the school employee has been seriously careless or reckless in how they brought this on. If what they did obviously brought on the legal fees, like a hearing, they could be forced to pay. No employee wants to be in that position to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars for a hearing. They will shut their mouths. They will hide evidence. No one wants to lose their house. Cost-risk analysis.

We need to be clear. Give my kids their supports and I will be less of a risk.

Don’t give me what my kid needs, and I will become very costly. Both financially, and a drain on the capacity of your staff.

We need to learn to speak their language without being obvious about it.

They don’t really believe the words you use. The threats you make. It just rolls off their back. They get threaten by parents ALLLLLL the time. What RARELY happens, is action. It takes a lot for parents to file complaints. And when they do, you jump into another category in their minds. If you could send them subliminal messages to pick up, you would want to tell them, “I AM EXPENSIVE”. They aren’t listening to your words as much as they are paying attention to YOUR BEHAVOIUR. That! They believe.

You don’t need to kill a fly with a house. You don’t want to seem so ridged that you are not workable. If they think you have gone to far to the dark side (so irate) unable to return and have any collaboration with, their goal will be based on liability of course, and you will be way too expensive. They will do everything in their power to just try to get you to leave.

It’s a fine line we walk.

Using human rights language is a red flag to them. It lets them know, don’t fuck with me. I know my shit. Start off slowly with key words. (Disability-related needs, equitable education, accommodation request). Add due dates for email responses. Escalate to the next level if they don’t respond in time. Communicate to them that you are professional, you will be able to sustain their poking and little games they play, and that you are not going anywhere. Show them by your behaviour and quality emails that you know your advocacy stuff. This is their language. Engage the cost-risk analysis. Being persistent and consistent alerts them.

To school administration, your child is a customer accessing their service. This is a business. Your child is potentially a risk and so are you. Employees have duties to perform and they don’t want risky shit-disturbing-employees either. Employees have a fiduciary duty to their employer. Staff – you do not want to be on the radar of the district. When you are seen as a risky employee they will engage in constructive dismissal techniques. They want to show you who is in charge. They will move you. They will change what grades you are teaching. Constantly. Once all of their liability concerns are addressed, then they seek to fulfill their duty towards the service they need to provide. An education. Within their constraints for all stakeholders, including their duties towards staff, work safe, insurance, the general public, etc.

People talk about advocacy feeling like it is a full-time job, and that this is work. It is work. It does feel like a separate profession with its own skill set. This is not just some social hobby playtime thing that parents do when we are bored or have extra time on our hands. We make time. This is serious shit. We need to learn. We need to grow. We need to get good at this stuff. For people who are new to education advocacy, this blog is probably going to feel pretty yucky to some people. I am so sorry for that. I wish I could protect you, but not talking about the truth is really not going to help you. You’ll just come out of school meetings all confused and probably blame yourself thinking you have done something wrong. No matter how they feel about you, they will not be able to be in a position where they will be allowed to make emotional decisions. It’s not you. It’s not personal. It doesn’t matter who you are. They just want to know if they can control you. It’s about liability. It’s about money and protecting their senior staff first, then shit rolls downhill in education. This is business. Period. And it takes a coordinated effort and a roll out plan. The Ministry isn’t even tracking money being spend on human rights complaints. This is all under their radar.

Show them that you can be expensive. Speak their cost-risk analysis language.

Rights-based advocacy is your key. Learn it. Know it. Breathe it.

Decreasing their liability is their priority. Then comes everything else.

This message will self destruct in 5 seconds.

EDIT TO ADD: Jan 29, 2026

School Protection Program

A human rights decision was posted today referencing the School Protection Program (SPP)

[2] 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. The SPP engaged Mr. Neufeld’s previous legal counsel to defend Mr. Neufeld in response to the complaint. On February 26, 2024, Mr. Neufeld’s previous legal counsel withdrew their representation of Mr. Neufeld. Mr. Neufeld was provided with access to his previous legal counsel’s file [Legal File] and he proceeded to publish or permit to be published the contents of that file online.

https://www.canlii.org/…/2025bchrt310/2025bchrt310.html

(Interesting decision – and what the SPP was wanting to hide from the public is also very interesting…. https://www.canlii.org/…/2025/2025bchrt64/2025bchrt64.html

So, naturally, it did push me to do some research. When I tell people that lawyers are involved WAY earlier than they suspect, here is the confirmation of that.

See page 10

Schools need to notify SPP immediately of any chance of a potential claim could occur.

Including:

“An allegation of discrimination is made or a claim is threatened for emotional distress, shock, or mental suffering;”

“Advise SPP immediately if legal documents are served (i.e. a Notice of Civil Claim) or if any correspondence is received from the Human Rights Tribunal (i.e. a Human Rights Complaint)”

“There is any indication that a claim may be made. For example, a demand for compensation is received, there is an indication that a person has retained a lawyer, or a legal action is threatened;”

They are instructed to report immediately and “Steps should be taken to secure and preserve any evidence, equipment or machinery involved in the incident. Call SPP.”

Here is the administrators handbook:

https://3cd219fb-e7d2-4f78-a55e-4dec88dd68e5.filesusr.com…