Tag: #Advocacy

Posted on

Reducing EA Support Hours = Discrimination

R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1436

This case is about the school district reducing a student’s Education Assistant (EA) support hours who was doing well with the EA support. The student originally had a full-time EA, and the district cut the time in half. The reduction in support hours led to an increase in “behaviour” that further led to exclusion.

The communication between the parent and the school was difficult, and they were banned from the school. The tribunal found that the district did not do enough to de-escalate the conflict.

The Human Rights Tribunal in Ontario found the school district discriminated. This case is what SOOOOOO many parents experience. It’s a long decision but a worthy one. I feel that many parents can print off this case and connect with what they are experiencing.

Human rights decisions in other provinces are not binding, BUT they are persuasive. So if the district tries to minimize the importance of the decision because it’s in Ontario, don’t believe them. They are just trying to do what they always do. Reduce, minimize, deny, deny. This case is from 2013. This is not “new” that parents advocacy cannot be used against them to justify the school district denying accommodations. Challenging communication does not release them of their legal duty to accommodate children with the disabilities to the point of undue hardship.

Here is another example, as I have outlined in Part 5 – Duty to Facilitate in the Duty to Accommodate series.

L.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1622

[77]        

(c)      School boards have an obligation under the Education Act to provide appropriate special education placements, programs and services to their exceptional students. Parental conduct or lack of parental authority cannot be used as a justification for not meeting an exceptional student’s needs; and

(d)      I agree with the decision in R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, (R.B./Keewatin) 2013 HRTO 1436, an HRTO decision cited by both parties in this case, at para 265, that a parent’s “fierce advocacy” for his or her child must not and cannot prevent a school board from accommodating the child’s needs to the point of undue hardship.

Okay lets get back to the 2013 case R.B v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board. There is a lot of history with this case and other decisions around it. But for this blog, lets focus on this decision.

The Human Rights Tribunal ordered:

********

[281]      The Tribunal orders the following;

a.   Payment by the respondent in the amount of $35,000.00 as monetary compensation for the injury to the applicant’s dignity, feelings and self-respect;

b.   R.B. will return to school in the 2013/2014 school year with a full-time shared EA in the classroom, speech/language support for 30 minutes per week and an appropriate behaviour management plan that has been agreed to by S.F. in consultation with R.B.’s treating specialists.

c.   S.F. is entitled to fully participate in the IPRC review meeting for the 2013/2014 school year and the development of R.B.’s IEP for this year;

d.   The trespass notice and communication ban issued in December 2011 is lifted.

********

This is what the complaint alleges in terms of the discrimination test.

*******

[218]     The applicant’s assertion that he was denied meaningful access to an education can be summarized as follows:

a.   Failure to provide EA support and learning strategies;

b.   Failure to provide appropriate behavioural strategies and to assess R.B.’s academic and behavioural regression in a timely way;

c.   Failure to provide appropriate educational programming during the withdrawal and exclusion.

[219]     In addition, the applicant argues he was reprised against in the following ways:

a.   The reduction of EA support in Grade 2 because of the advocacy of S.F.;

b.   R.B.’s exclusion from school on October 22, 2012;

c.   The communication ban.

*******

Here are some noteworthy paragraphs to highlight some areas of the decision to read more. There were some other details of the complaint that I haven’t pulled in there. It would just be too long. But this case is something that A LOT of families experience. I truly encourage you to take the time you need to read the case in full.

*******

[33]        On June 23, 2011, the Vice-Principal advised S.F. that there would be a half-time EA assigned to R.B.’s classroom the next school year at Open Roads Public School (“Open Roads”). Open Roads is a school that amalgamated Riverview and another school. The Vice-Principal advised S.F. that a reduction in Ministry of Education funding had significantly reduced the school’s EA support. She further advised that the school team was confident R.B. would do very well with half-time EA support because of his growth in independence and maturity and the progress he had made in Grade 1.

[98]        On October 22, 2012, R.B. was excluded from school by the school Principal for inappropriate behaviour including swearing, using profanity, spitting, yelling, cutting a child’s sweater, stomping on a child’s leg, throwing material and being non-compliant with his teacher, educational assistant, Vice-Principal and Principal. The Notice of Exclusion stated R.B.’s return to school was conditional upon the completion of a psychological assessment by the respondent’s school psychologist, Dr. Michael Stambrook, and the respondent being confident R.B.’s return would not compromise the physical and mental well-being of R.B. and his classmates.

[99]        During the exclusion, R.B. was provided with instruction from an itinerant teacher three hours per week in the public library. S.F. supplemented this instruction. S.F. developed a good rapport with the itinerant teacher and R.B. made significant academic gains under her instruction. For example, when he was excluded, R.B. was reading at level 2. By February 2013, he was reading at level 7.

[113]     The respondent alleges S.F. made unfounded allegations that R.B. was bullied in Grade 2...

[118]     Based on the respondent’s own evidence, I cannot find that S.F. made unfounded allegations of bullying in R.B.’s Grade 2 school year.

[119]     The respondent asserts that S.F. falsely accused the school of segregating R.B. in Grade 2.

[124]     Based on this evidence, I cannot conclude that S.F. made unfounded allegations of segregation in R.B.’s Grade 2 school year.

[130]     The respondent argues S.F. interfered with the accommodation process when she did not advise the Grade 2 teacher that R.B. was no longer taking medication in response to her inquiries in the fall of 2011, at a time when his behaviour was escalating. The evidence from Dr. Warkentin was R.B. was off medication by the end of October 2011.

[137]     For these reasons I cannot find that S.F.’s failure to disclose the fact that R.B. was no longer taking medication in the fall of 2011 interfered with the school’s ability to accommodate R.B.

[143]     I find that S.F.’s spouse made the statement to the Principal “if you want threatening, I’ll show you fucking threatening”. This statement was a verbal threat. There is no evidence before me that S.F.’s spouse physically threatened the Principal. Although the Principal testified he lunged towards her, the Vice-Principal testified he stepped towards her. Neither witness testified that he made any physical threat. The Principal left the room and the police were called.

[144]     The fact that S.F.’s spouse made this comment cannot be attributed as misconduct on S.F.’s part. Further, there is no connection between the comment and the accommodation process for R.B

[154]     Based on the above evidence, I cannot conclude that S.F.’s conduct prevented the school from accommodating R.B. in Grade 2. Even accepting that her conduct made her relationship with the school staff extremely difficult, there is no evidence that this difficult relationship prevented the school from meeting R.B.’s educational needs in Grade 2. Put simply, there is no evidence to establish a connection between S.F.’s conduct and the accommodation process for R.B.

[248]     During the period of the exclusion, R.B. was provided with instruction from an itinerant teacher for three hours per week in the public library.

Conclusion:

[255]     The applicant has established that he was denied a meaningful education when his EA support was cut in half in Grade 2, when he did not have an appropriate behaviour management plan from Grade 2 onwards, when he was excluded from school in October 2012 without appropriate educational instruction, and when the communication ban denied S.F. the opportunity to meet with R.B.’s teachers and EAs in order to ensure that his needs were met.

[256]     When a student is excluded from school, he is denied an education. No one would suggest that providing a student three hours of instruction per week in a public library, regardless of the effectiveness of that instruction, is an appropriate education. Dr. Stambrook agreed.

ORDER

[281]      The Tribunal orders the following;

a.   Payment by the respondent in the amount of $35,000.00 as monetary compensation for the injury to the applicant’s dignity, feelings and self-respect;

b.   R.B. will return to school in the 2013/2014 school year with a full-time shared EA in the classroom, speech/language support for 30 minutes per week and an appropriate behaviour management plan that has been agreed to by S.F. in consultation with R.B.’s treating specialists.

c.   S.F. is entitled to fully participate in the IPRC review meeting for the 2013/2014 school year and the development of R.B.’s IEP for this year;

d.   The trespass notice and communication ban issued in December 2011 is lifted.

*********

Another case that was accepted by the BC Human Rights Tribunal when a student was denied an EA for one of their classes, was mentioned in this anonymization decision:

This decision is an anonymization decision, but in the first paragraph it summarizes what the crux of the complaint is about.

The Student (by the parent) v. The School District, 2025 BCHRT 17

[1] In April 2022, the Parent made a complaint against the School District on the Student’s behalf. The complaint alleges that the School District discriminated against the Student regarding its services based on the Student’s mental disability. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the School District failed to accommodate the Student by not providing him with an Education Assistant in one of his classes.

REDUCING EA HOURS THAT LED TO HARM AND A DENIAL OF ACCESSING EDUCATION CAN BE A DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

Posted on

Strong Advocacy = Written Authority

School staff have a lot of discretion and power in decision-making related to our children. Not just to their learning but to their socialization. This is given to them by the School Act, other collective agreements, and even human rights decisions uphold their expertise.

At the same time, many of them lack knowledge in education law to fulfil their duties lawfully, and they can easily overstep and make mistakes. This gap in knowledge and a call for more legal training for educators is even written about in education law textbooks. (Education Law in Canada: A Guide for Teachers and Administrators, 2nd Edition. Edited by David C. Young). This book even lacks sufficient knowledge on the Duty to Accommodate, which they admit. This book for 2025, the written content entered was capped at February 2024.

We know that the Human Rights Code supersedes teacher classroom autonomy, but many educators don’t. For some, it is quite the wake-up call when they find this out. Accommodations are required. They don’t get to decide not to provide them because of how they want to run their classroom.

Many of them don’t know the legal obligations around IEPs. They aren’t just words on a page. Many of them are not aware that they can have a Teachers Regulation Branch complaint filed against them if they don’t follow them.

Chances are, if you have read all of my blogs, you will know more about your child’s rights than they will. Which is really a failing for all involved. I don’t think it is fair for teachers to truly not understand what their legal responsibilities are, either. I would feel nervous in that role.

But first, before we dive in: What is written authority?

Written authority is law, policy or some kind of document. Something that is written and acts on behalf of other people, that has power, and people will use it as a decision-making tool. If school staff deny our requests, we always want to ask them something along the lines of: What is the written authority that supports your decision? Basically, says who? Where does it come from? People just can’t just make stuff up.

Staff may feel very confident when making statements. You would swear by their confidence that they are true. Not necessarily. And not that they are intentionally trying to mislead you. Although some people may flat-out lie to you. As I have experienced both.

When they tell us information, especially when it is related to a decision, always ask where that information comes from.

If they tell you that teachers are allowed to _______________________.

Then we can ask them to show us where the written authority is that states they are allowed to do that.

Basically, administrators are very good at spinning stories and making things look very professional. They may legitimately believe what they are saying. We want to cautiously accept what they are saying to us, and always question what they are telling us. We don’t accept vague assertions. How you want to frame your inquiry is up to you. Maybe as a sense of curiosity, and wanting to understand your rights. But you have every right to understand fully where they are coming from, and which written authority they are basing their information on. Sometimes they are correct in what they are telling us, but we also know that the Human Rights Code supersedes policy.

The topic of trust is a layered topic when it comes to education for families with kids with disabilities. We have been hurt over and over again. We know the district operates from a liability lens and they have many obligations connected to staff and the public that go beyond the best interest of our child. We want to believe that they know what they are talking about. But sometimes… honestly…. they just don’t. Or they don’t understand the whole picture.

So what is that zone of trust that we need to enter? Where we can bring ourselves to trust them enought to drop our kids off every day, but also not believe everything they say and be vigilant enough to not assume they are doing everything they can or should for our child?

Ask where that information comes from.

Because you have a lot of written authorities on your side too.

The strongest form of advocacy includes the following: strong documentation, evidence, and written authorities (using law, policy, and other documents created by the school). Follow official internal complaint/advocacy channels. When necessary, file external complaints.

Info to know!

Evidence of Harm
How to Gather Evidence
Email Writing for Schools

Depending on the issue that you are navigating, ground your advocacy in:

  1. Human Rights Law – Duty to Accommodate
  2. School Act & Section 11
  3. Teachers Standards
  4. Students rights
  5. Parents rights
  6. Ministry Policy and Orders
  7. School Board Policy & Administrative Procedures – will be posted on your district’s website
  8. Accessibility Legislation – your district will have its accessibility committee posted on the district website.
  9. Administrative Procedural Fairness (Ombudsperson BC)
    .

Instead of us just taking their word for it, we can ask them to explain

For example: You are telling me they have full autonomy to make discipline decisions. How is the teacher’s discipline decision in line with the Teachers Standard #1?

Or

How has the school’s approach to my child’s IEP development been in line with #4 & #5?

If they have to go in front of the tribunal at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, they will need to provide evidence that they are providing your child with reasonable accommodations. So why not show you this now?

No one anywhere in any profession can just operate in a way or say things that are not grounded in truth, ethics, evidence, or in line with laws and policies. Not nurses, pharmacists, counsellors, car mechanics, engineers, dentists, etc, etc, etc.

We don’t want fluffy conversations that they think they can just float past us and we just accept these without understanding what they are talking about. We don’t accept vague beliefs or opinions. If they are using words that you don’t understand, stop them and ask them to explain. If they state something, we want to know, where is this coming from? Show me.

As you advocate, you will get better and better. You will learn more and more. Your child is getting an education. So are you.

They aren’t breaking you. They are building you. You can take this pile of shit that you are dealing with and turn it into fertilizer.

This stuff isn’t easy. Take it inch by inch. We don’t move mountains in a day. Scream into a pillow and then get to work.

Ask for help!

Here is the school advocacy help directory. These people know their stuff, and they can help you. You don’t need to do this alone. For those who would like to consult with a lawyer, I recommend Kesari Law Corp.

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?