Tag: #Barriers

Posted on

Why Can’t we Just Sue the Government?

Good question!

Many parent(s)/guardians are asking this question. What they are experiencing in the education system is mass systemic discrimination and they are wondering how in the world is this allowed to happen?? Doesn’t the Charter protect our rights?

Let’s tear this question to bits.

Why can’t we just sue the government?

Funding

  1. A large majority of parents who want to sue the government is because of lack of funding. They want more money from the government to be spent on their children.
    .

When you sue the government it needs to meet a specific legal test. We can’t just sue for lack of funding. If we could, any non-profit organization that felt they weren’t getting enough funding would be suing. That would be all of them. All non-profit organizations of marginalized community groups need more funding and feel they are never getting enough to service their community who are facing lots of discriminatory situations. They are all understaffed. All competing for grants. All desperate. All good and worthy causes. All justified. Yet still… not getting the funding to meet the needs of their community. Keep reading, I’ll explain further.

Quality of Life

2. Something to keep in mind, the government doesn’t owe us a certain standard of living. There is no legislation or law on this. We know this because people are sleeping on the streets and they can’t sue the government for being in that position.

Democracy & Charter of Rights

3. Our government works as a democracy. The system that we have to express our dislike over how the government spends our money, is through voting, contacting your MLA, or peaceful protesting. Other social movement activities like signing petitions, or starting your own non-profit organizations to work with other community members to advocate are all “system” approved ways of furthering your cause. As we will read below in case law, courts will not tell the government how to spend their money when it’s connected to resources in dealing with inequity. The government is allowed to take a “one-step” at a time approach when addressing issues of inequality. They are allowed to determine how to spend society’s limited resources and create social policy when choosing between disadvantaged groups. Something to keep in mind, our system is set up as a separation of powers between the government and the court system. The “conversation” that happens back and forth between courts and the government creating laws is often referred to as the democratic dialogue. See the two Supreme Court of Canada decisions related to Charter Challenges below.

Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., 2004 SCC 66 (CanLII), [2004] 3 SCR 381

[75] [I]t is not realistic for the Court to assume that there are unlimited funds to address the needs of all.”

[79] While purely financial considerations are not sufficient to justify the infringement of Charter rights, they are relevant to determining the standard of deference for the test of minimal impairment when reviewing legislation which is enacted for a purpose which is not financial.

[83] It is also clear that while financial considerations alone may not justify Charter infringements . . . governments must be afforded wide latitude to determine the proper distribution of resources in society . . .  This is especially true where Parliament, in providing specific social benefits, has to choose between disadvantaged groups . . . .

Fraser V. Canada [2020] SCC 28

[ 207 ]                      Governments must be afforded the latitude to act incrementally when addressing a deeply ingrained, complex and persistent social phenomenon such as inequality. (This assumes that the inequality arises from factors in society; where the government itself has created the inequality, matters are, as we have already indicated, somewhat different.) There are processes by which a government must set its priorities, allocate its budget, and obtain parliamentary approval of its programs. In designing legislation to address a particular equality issue, a government can draw on far more internal and external expertise than we judges can. As a result, it is better positioned than we are to appreciate the consequences of a particular course of law‑making, both upon society and upon public resources. With these practical realities in mind, we must also recognize that, were a government expected to remove all inequalities for all groups on every occasion it acted, it may be disinclined to act, given that any remedial scheme will inevitably be under‑inclusive in some respect. Governments would, understandably, become “reluctant to create any new [remedial] benefit schemes because their limits would depend on an accurate prediction of the outcome of court proceedings under s. 15(1) of the Charter ” ( Egan v. Canada , [1995] 2 SCR 513, at para. 104, per Sopinka J.).

[ 208 ]                      To avoid this chilling effect, and to encourage governments to enact remedial legislation addressing pre‑existing disadvantage, this Court has (until now) judiciously accepted that governments may implement reforms “one step at a time, [and] address[s ] [the reforms] to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind” ( R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. , [1986] 2 SCR 713, at p. 772, quoting Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma , 348 US 483 (1955), at p. The focal point in assessing remedial legislation is not to ask whether the government has met “the gold standard” ( Auton , at para. 62; see also paras. 59-61), but to recognize that government should not be obliged to deal with all aspects of a problem at once. It must surely be permitted to take incremental measures. It must be given reasonable leeway to deal with problems one step at a time, to balance possible inequalities under the law against other inequalities resulting from the adoption of a course of action, and to take account of the difficulties, whether social, economic or budgetary , that would arise if it attempted to deal with social and economic problems in their entirety, assuming such problems can ever be perceived in their entirety. [Emphasis added.]

[ 213 ] …..This is because only legislatures have the institutional capacity to conduct the research and study necessary to assess how, and at what pace, its resources should be applied to most effectively address a particular pre‑existing equality issue (and ultimately, to oversee that implementation) . Courts are not well placed to define the nature and scope of an obligation to enact 
sufficiently remedial legislation (Ferrel v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1998), 42 OR (3d) 97 (CA), at p. 113).

[229 ] Similar issues will undoubtedly arise with any other social welfare legislation or government attempts to remedy systemic disadvantage. By reserving the right to arbitrarily second‑guess and undo any legislation that attempts to incrementally address systemic disadvantage, the Court makes it more practically difficult for legislatures and governments to implement policies that promote equality. Put simply, we see restricting the government’s ability to incrementally address disadvantage as a peculiar way to promote equality.

Human Rights Cases Involving Ministry of Education

4. Every single human rights case that I have read across Canada, that has included the provincial Ministry of Education in their complaint, has been dismissed. If their complaint continues, the Ministry of Education is never involved. I haven’t read one case where the Ministry of Education was included. The Ministry gives the funding to the districts and the districts decide how to allocate the money, which removes the Ministry of Education from decisions that would pull them into the human rights complaints about kids not accessing needed resources.

5. I know someone who had the opportunity to consult a lawyer regarding this matter. They were told a way to file a class action human rights complaint that could involve the Ministry of Education is if the Ministry have policy that is discriminatory. This route is still possible if they do this. Here is an example of this in a Charter court case that took place in Alberta. Kerber v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 98 

Human Rights Process

6. I have been asked, why can’t we just file a class action human rights complaint against the Ministry of Education? So we have established, it would need to be something like a discriminatory policy in order for it to be connected to the Ministry. If there is a group of parents who want to file a class action human rights complaint who wants to create a decision from the tribunal, we would need to find a group of parents who were potentially prepared for a 8-10-year fight. Right now, just for a single complaint to reach a hearing level at the BC HRT, it will take about 4-5 years according to flow chart produced by the BC Human Rights Clinic. It could take a year for the tribunal to write a decision, if not more. This case took 15 months for the tribunal to write up the decision. Especially if it was a class-action human rights complaint it could be long and complex. Class action lawsuits tend to be long. Lawyers fees for one parent I know, was given an estimate for $30,000 for hearing preparation and a $10,000 per day for a hearing. The school district lawyer will know your resources for lawyer fees are limited and they will do everything they can to drive up your lawyer costs. So this group of parents would need to be prepared to spend thousands and thousands of dollars, agree to not accept any settlement, and continue along to a hearing. OR they would need to be ready to self-represent themselves. OR they could find a unicorn of a lawyer willing to do pro-bono work. (So many parents have had their pro-bono lawyer drop them before a hearing. We would need to find someone willing to commit for the long haul for free.) After the BC HRT decision is posted, the Ministry could possibly file a Judicial Review after the decision. With a class action decision, the compensation money might be large enough or the precedent be enough that the school districts lawyers would view it worthwhile to pursue further a Judicial Review. That would launch it now to the BC Supreme Court. Even with all that, a policy change would affect only those impacted by the policy and wouldn’t make the systemic change that parents are looking for when they ask the question, why can’t we just sue the government? (Which typically means, how do we get more funding?) If parents want a policy change, I wonder if it would be best to file a single complaint and get the policy change during a settlement mediation meeting. It would be so much faster and they could get the policy change that they need much faster so it could impact their children. Not 10 years later. However, that would just be a policy change within their district, and not provincially. The very system that is intended to resolve discriminatory issues can be a barrier itself.

Courts & Education

7. Generally, the courts don’t like education cases. It depends on what you are suing for and what the legal test is.

For example: Educational Malpractice

Gould v. Regina (East) School Division No. 77, 1996 CanLII 6807 (SK KB)

“The courts are an inappropriate forum to test the
efficacy of educational programs and pedagogical methods.
That judicial interference would be the inevitable result of
the recognition of a legal duty of care is clear from the fact
that in presenting their case, plaintiffs would, of necessity,
call upon jurors to decide whether they should have been
taught one subject instead of another, or whether one teaching
method was more appropriate than another, or whether certain
tests should have been administered or test results
interpreted in one way rather than another, and so on, ad
infinitum.  It simply is not within the judicial function to
evaluate conflicting theories of how best to educate.  Even if
it were possible to determine with exactitude the pedagogical
course to follow with respect to particular individuals, yet
another problem would arise.  Public education involves an
inherent stress between taking action to satisfy the
educational needs of the individual student and the needs of
the student body as a whole. It is not for the courts to
determine how best to utilize scarce educational resources to
achieve these sometimes conflicting objectives.  Simply
stated, the recognition of a cause of action sounding in
negligence to recover for “educational malpractice” would
impermissibly require the courts to oversee the administration
of the State’s public school system.“

Costs & Risk

8. If we did want to try and sue the government via the court system and not the human rights route, we would need to be prepared for it to possibly be tossed out. That wouldn’t be such a bad risk to take, however, if we lose the respondents will ask the courts that we pay their legal fees. Which can happen for the losing party in court cases. You’ll want to read this link. Costs are awarded to the successful party.

The Charter – Limited

9. What I learned from my human rights law class was that we don’t just have open-ended rights under the Charter, our rights are how they are DEFINED under the Charter. And that is case law. Case law tells us how our rights to not be discriminated against is defined. An example of this definition is the case Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, 1997 CanLII 366 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 241. This case famously defined reasonable accommodations and separate classes for students with a disability as a reasonable accommodation due to what is considered reasonable and best interest of the child. All of the human rights cases that make it to hearings are what define our rights under the law too. These definitions and interpretations of law are important. (Duty to accommodate) Each decision defines our rights.

10. Also an important part of the Charter to understand is Section One – Reasonable Limits. The purpose of this “Section 1 effects a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society by permitting limits to be placed on guaranteed rights and freedoms. “Most modern constitutions recognize that rights are not absolute and can be limited if this is necessary to achieve an important objective and if the limit is appropriately tailored, or proportionate.” (Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 SCR 610, at paragraph 36).”

To take a Charter challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada it would be a 10-year fight, we would need a pro bono lawyer, and based on the case law I have seen, I am not aware of any case law that would be substantial in helping us to force the government to increase funding and resources for kids with disabilities in education.

11. Law isn’t the magic bullet that people tend to think it is. Laws can come into force but they need to be APPLIED for them to have an impact. That means that advocacy around using these laws will still need to happen. Law is a tool for us to use. The system needs to uphold these laws through its systems and accountability design. If the system doesn’t uphold a new law, it won’t be the magic we want it to be. We have laws that say it’s illegal to discriminate, and yet it still happens every day. We still need to change people’s hearts and minds. Law is a start, but it is just the beginning of the work. We need to take these laws and apply them. Laws won’t fix everything, but they are hugely important. We need a social movement AND laws. We need to use every avenue we have. I think of the parachute activities I used to play with my kids at Strong Start centers. We’d all have a piece of the very large parachute to hold onto and put the ball in and bounce it around. We all need to lift and do the work together if we want to keep the ball of inclusion on the parachute. We all need to be in our own corners, all lifting together simultaneously. All of the work done at BCCPAC, parent advocacy groups, advocacy organizations, human rights work, BC Ed Access, School Trustees, BCTF, Teacher’s unions, Post-secondary teacher education programs, EA programs, Professional Support Staff, Counsellors, Ministry of Education and Child Care, accessibility committees, and individual parents, all of us.

So now what?

This part is my opinion and experience. The soft spot of the education system is money. The people in power care about money.

It needs to become more expensive and time-consuming to deal with the consequences of discriminating against students with disabilities. Providing an inclusive education needs to become easier and less expensive. Which means to me, through my lens…. human rights complaints. LOTS OF THEM.

I can tell you 100%, and I have witnessed these meetings, that when systems get too many human rights complaints and their litigation costs go through the roof, then and only then do they start to look at how they can make policy changes to reduce the number of human rights complaints. I don’t care what their motivation is, the results are still the same. Policy in the right direction. Staff training. This is what it seems to take.

Human Rights complaints have the potential of being very expensive, as we advance the purpose of the Code and create those gold nugget decisions.

Dealing with ableism is slow and painful work. But necessary. Social movements are like that.

Every little bit of advocacy we do, all adds up. It all matters. Every bit of human rights law advancements, every decision, every DPAC inclusion meeting, every email to your MLA or school Trustee, every advocacy advancement you make, every time you support another parent. All of it.

We need an army of informed and empowered parents, spreading out and reaching all the corners of the province.

For those of you who are willing and able to get in the ring and make discrimination expensive, hats off to you, we need you. File away.

SOCIAL MOVEMENT + HUMAN RIGHTS LAW = MORE EQUITY, LESS ABLEISM

If anyone wants to consult with an lawyer who specializes in education, I recommend https://www.kesarilaw.com/

Posted on

“this family needed help beyond what I’m trained for” (para 58)

This was a statement by made by the Acting VP in a human rights decision.

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

[58]           Y asked the Acting VP in cross examination how the break from the classroom would have been restorative for X had it happened at home. The Acting VP replied that “Mom knows best”, noting that X was “totally dysregulated”, placed in a challenging classroom, and needed space. The Acting VP said that X spoke a lot about his Dad during this time, and how he missed him. He observed, “this family needed help beyond what I’m trained for.”

This has me asking…

What are educational staff trained for?

AND

When professionals, such as occupational therapists (OT), psychologists, or speech-language pathologists, make recommendations, why are some parents having issues with getting these recommendations placed in their child’s Individual Education Plan (IEP)?

The kinds of education that teachers have for disabilities vary greatly and in my opinion, extremely lacking. Huge gaps. They hold similar beliefs and biases as the general public. I have learned the hard way that some teachers have zero training in this area. There are educational staff who have, on their own, focused their professional development in this area and are extremely valuable. There is a huge sliding scale of knowledge and skill between educators and administrators.

We already know that the human rights code supersedes classroom teacher autonomy.

So above all, they need to provide an equitable education. If they are ignoring or refusing to implement professional recommendations, aren’t they taking a HUGE risk?

If by ignoring professional recommendations, the child isn’t able to access their education equitably and there is harm that occurs, I’d be filing a human rights complaint.

It has been quite a SHOCKING discovery to me, just how little education staff know about disabilities. Especially invisible ones. Some people are very knowledgeable. However, the number of people working in education who have little to zero knowledge is stunning. And scary. And makes complete sense how so many children experience real trauma at school, and so many are being homeschooled unable to return to school.

Here is a report compiled by Jenn Scharf titled Stories of Exclusion 2021. These are a collection of 60 stories told by parents.

I don’t think our education system is fair.

To anyone.

Everyone is being set up to fail. My heart goes out to the educational staff expected to create magic and miracles with such a scarce system. But, if you are ignoring professional recommendations and putting your own personal perspective in its place when you lack such training and expertise, I have no sympathy for you.

I do have sympathy for the child who may be harmed by your willful ignorance. I have sympathy for the family who will now be put in the position of continued advocacy, yet again, and may be considering filing a human rights complaint so their child can get an education.

Is the education system struggling with the concept of inclusion, or is it struggling because not enough people have the knowledge and skills to make it work?

And then add the impacts of scarcity in education

And then add ableism.

AAAAAHHHH ok…. now this all makes sense.

This is why we are all struggling.

This is systemic. Multi-dimensional systemic issues.

And if someone who is reading this thinks…. well they are now starting to have a class on the topic of disabilities in universities, isn’t that something?

It clearly isn’t enough.

Clearly.

Edit: A parent on my Facebook page commented after reading this blog “Not to mention a lot of the disability training they do get is outdated and ableist….” – Excellent point!!

Posted on

Daycare Termination and Disability

RE: New Human Rights Case linked to daycare and termination of daycare services due to a perceived disability.

Mother obo Child v. Daycare, 2024 BCHRT 251

Since we all have most likely struggled with daycare issues at some point, I am posting this case.

It is a very interesting case. A situation that parents find themselves trapped in way too often.

The child hasn’t been diagnosed yet.

They suspect he might have ADHD/Autism. Their daycare terminated services.

The mother is self-representing.

This is a dismissal application.

She won.

Her case is continuing to a hearing/mediation meeting.

[1] In September 2020, at the age of two, the Child began attending the Daycare. On around October 22, 2020, the Daycare informed the Child’s parents that it would no longer provide childcare services to the Child. Services ended one month later, around November 20, 2020. The Mother brings this complaint on behalf of the Child. The complaint alleges the Daycare discriminated against the Child when it terminated its services because it perceived him to have a mental disability and because he is a Jehovah Witness, contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code [Code] which prohibits discrimination in services.

[2] The Daycare denies discriminating. It states it terminated services to the Child in accordance with its “Childcare Discharge Policy” because the Daycare was unable to provide the Child with the level of care he required, and not for any reasons related to a real or perceived mental disability or to his religion. The Daycare also says that even if the Child’s perceived mental disability was a factor in the termination, it was justified in ending the childcare service it provided to the Child because the Child engaged in harmful and aggressive behaviour that put the safety of other children at risk. It asks the Tribunal for an order dismissing the complaint against it under s. 27(1)(c).

[3] The issues I must decide are:

a. whether there is no reasonable prospect the Child will succeed in proving the Daycare perceived him to have a disability and, if so, whether the perceived disability factored into the termination of services;

b. if so whether the Daycare is reasonably certain to prove it was justified in its decision to terminate services; and

c. whether there is no reasonable prospect the Child will succeed in proving his religion factored into the termination of services.

[4] For the following reasons, I deny the application. To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact.

We also have another case where the teenager was bullied due to sexual orientation and he won his case, even though he is heterosexual. It didn’t matter. He was treated and bullied as if he belonged to the protected group.
Jubran v. Board of Trustees, 2002 BCHRT 10 (CanLII)
Here is a summary of key highlights.

These two cases are examples of a perceived disability/protected ground. There is room here for these to be used in an argument in an educational setting. Whether the tribunal will accept it or not is another question.



Here is the full decision with all of the details.

https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/…/decisions/recent/2024-bchrt-251/

Posted on

Let’s Talk about Hindsight!

Hindsight and Meaningful Inquiry

Want to get the school moving on providing your child supports?

Remove their hindsight defence and trigger the duty to accommodate.

Why does the school want a defence at all? To avoid a finding of discrimination if a parent was to ever bring their case to a hearing at the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

If they know we could be successful at a human rights tribunal hearing, they will be much more motivated to provide your child the supports they need NOW. This is because they want to reduce the damage period. They are always focused on reducing the scope of your complaint and minimizing the harm.

Removing their hindsight defence and triggering meaningful inquiry is key for our children.

This decision explains what the hindsight defence is.


Student by Parent v. School District BCHRT 237


[99]           Next, in B v. School District, 2019 BCHRT 170, the evidence supported that the school district provided the child with the recommended supports and accommodations. The Tribunal found that it was “only with hindsight” that it was possible to say that the child could have benefited from more support: para. 81. It dismissed the complaint in part because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the school district reasonably ought to have known that the child required more: para. 98. In contrast here, I have found that the District had sufficient information to trigger some kind of inquiry or response beyond asking the Student how she was doing and, assuming the counsellor did this, advising of available supports.

They may claim, “We didn’t know.” If they didn’t know your child needed more support or ought to have known they needed more support, they will escape responsibility. When they are aware, they must investigate.

So you know what that means.

Parent(s)/guardians need to be VERY communicative with the school and tell them that:

  1. Tell them your child is struggling.
  2. Tell them your child’s struggle is connected to school.
  3. Explain how your child is struggling.
    • Are they crying at home?
    • Are they refusing to attend?
    • Are they melting down after school?
    • Do you have examples of homework or school work to show them as evidence?
  4. Explain how their struggle is connected to their disability.

So, we need to start this off in an email. We need to document it.

Whether they respond to the emails we send is another blog. But we need to build evidence that they were VERY aware, in case they think they can claim they didn’t know. It’s amazing how the defence of “oh we didn’t know, oh I was confused, oh I think we had a misunderstanding, I didn’t realize that…”. We need to be so crystal clear that we don’t give them any wiggle room to say “we didn’t know”.

Human Rights Decisions – Education

There are two human rights decisions that, when put together, are powerful. Both parents self-represented themselves at the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

They must investigate when we tell them our child is struggling. – Meaningful inquiry.

Student by Parent v. School District BCHRT 237

[100]      In short, I agree with the District that the Parent and Student were obliged to bring forward information relating to accommodation. The Parent did that, when she communicated that the Student had anxiety and trichotillomania and that school was taking a significant toll on her physical and mental health. That information should have been enough to prompt a meaningful inquiry by the school to identify what was triggering the Student’s symptoms and what supports or accommodations may be appropriate to ensure she was able to meaningfully and equitably access her education. The failure to take that step was, in my view, not reasonable. As a result, the disability-related impacts on the Student, arising from conditions in her Language 10 class between April 24 and June 27, 2019, have not been justified and violate s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

[104]      In sum, I have found that the conditions in the Student’s grade 8 Language 10 class exacerbated the Student’s anxiety and trichotillomania, and that the District failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and address those conditions during the period between April 24, 2019, and June 27, 2019 (the last day of school). I find this is a violation of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, and warrants a remedy, which I address below.

They aren’t allowed to give up when things aren’t working well. They must review and adapt their approaches.

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

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

Meaningful Inquiry – Duty to Accommodate

By communicating that our child is struggling, we will trigger MEANINGFUL INQUIRY. You are triggering the duty to accommodate.

It is very

very

very

very important that we are communicating with them. This is how we block a hindsight defence.

Schools are increasingly not wanting to put communication in emails, and instead, they want phone calls or meetings. They may say that it is easier to resolve issues through communicating in person/phone. That may be true. But it is not lost on us that it also doesn’t create any documentation.

But that doesn’t stop us from sending emails to create a paper trail and document what is happening. You can create a summary of the minute and put in the email, “Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything or if you need to clarify anything I have written.”

So send those emails. cc: the main people responsible. Principals and LSS teachers for IEP implementation. Each person you cc: in an email could be a potential witness in a hearing.

Just keep sending those emails and create that paper trail. Communicating is part of the collaboration process in the duty to accommodate. So, you are just fulfilling your responsibility in the process.

Any diagnosis you have received from a doctor, even if it didn’t come from a psychoeducational assessment, I suggest you have the doctor write a letter and ask the school to put it in your child’s file. Also, you may want to ask them how this is going to be communicated out to the staff, so they are aware. Anything you can do to provide documentation on a diagnosis locks them into the duty to accommodate.

Blogs on Creating a Document Trail


Documentation
Improper Conduct – Hiding Disclosure – What documents to ask for
Why is Documentation so Important?
Evidence of Harm. Effective advocacy in Education
How to Gather Evidence

Blogs on How to Communicate with the School

Communication
What is the Ask? Email writing for School Advocacy
5 Rules on how to be Untouchable
The Use of Delay
Defamation. You Said What?
Liability in Education
Email Q & A
How to Gather Evidence
Strong Advocacy = Written Authority

Posted on

Barriers! Barriers! Barriers!

When we discuss equity, accessibility the human rights code and accessibility legislation it is ALLLL about removing barriers.

Therefore when we advocate for our kids, any advocacy grounded in rights-based advocacy is going to focus on barriers.

1. Human Rights Code

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

Not all negative experiences are discrimination.

[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.

The test, is whether barriers have been reasonably removed.

[142] Y has said that the learning support provided throughout X’s education has not been enough for X to “reach the same level as his peers or possibly excel”. The District’s obligation is reasonable not perfect accommodation. As I have said above, reasonable accommodation is not necessarily measured by whether a student is meeting or exceeding certain standardized learning goals but rather by whether barriers have been removed to provide meaningful access to education.

2. Also, accessibility legislation THE ACCESSIBLE BC ACT

Barriers

2   (1)For the purposes of this Act, a barrier is anything that hinders the full and equal participation in society of a person with an impairment.

(2)For certainty and without limiting subsection (1), barriers can be

(a)caused by environments, attitudes, practices, policies, information, communications or technologies, and

(b)affected by intersecting forms of discrimination.

So…… what are barriers?



As outlined from the Onatario’s Unviersity Accessibility Campus (2017)  Here are 5 Barriers

Attitudinal Barriers – are behaviours, perceptions and assumptions that discriminate against persons with disabilities. These barriers often emerge from a lack of understanding, which can lead people to ignore, to judge, or have misconceptions about a person with a disability.

Organizational or systemic barriers are policies, procedures or practices that unfairly discriminate and can prevent individuals from participating fully in a situation. Organizational or systemic barriers are often put into place unintentionally.

Architectural or physical barriers are elements of buildings or outdoor spaces that create barriers to persons with disabilities. These barriers relate to elements such as the design of a building’s stairs or doorways, the layout of rooms, or the width of halls and sidewalks.

Information or communications barriers occur when sensory disabilities, such as hearing, seeing or learning disabilities, have not been considered. These barriers relate to both the sending and receiving of information.

Technological barriers occur when a device or technological platform is not accessible to its intended audience and cannot be used with an assistive device. Technology can enhance the user experience, but it can also create unintentional barriers for some users. Technological barriers are often related to information and communications barriers.

Communicating with the school

When communicating your communiation with the school it is the responsbility of the school to investigate what the barriers are. And to figure out how to remove them. Then they need to monitor, and adapt until the barriers are removed.

You need to express to the school your child is struggling and how they are struggling. Communiating what you are seeing and dealing with and what your concerns are, is key to trigger this inquiry.

Their investigation responsibilities is connected to “Meaningful Inquiry”.
Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237
Summary of the Case with key highlights

[100]      In short, I agree with the District that the Parent and Student were obliged to bring forward information relating to accommodation. The Parent did that, when she communicated that the Student had anxiety and trichotillomania and that school was taking a significant toll on her physical and mental health. That information should have been enough to prompt a meaningful inquiry by the school to identify what was triggering the Student’s symptoms and what supports or accommodations may be appropriate to ensure she was able to meaningfully and equitably access her education. The failure to take that step was, in my view, not reasonable. As a result, the disability-related impacts on the Student, arising from conditions in her Language 10 class between April 24 and June 27, 2019, have not been justified and violate s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

Their responsibility to monitor and adapt
Summary of Case with key highlights

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

Accommodations are ramps, open doorways, open windows, bridges and all other symbolic connections you can think of that all mean the same thing. It’s a way to level the playing field and provide a child with the same opportunity as anyone else. To remove a barrier. To give someone a chance. To not create more obstacles in their path than anyone else.

Posted on

NEW – OIPC Decision – Coquitlam School District

A New OIPC Decision was posted on April 15th involving the Coquitlam School District. Order F24-30

This is quite a unique decision involving a school district, compared with other decisions I have read. Particularly because I have never seen this section of the FIPPA used before. Section 14 – Solicitor-client privilege.

In some decisions involving all sorts of organizations, the respondents will suddenly be willing to disclose some of the previously withheld documents, only when the inquiry with the adjudicator starts. This is also the case here.

Do organizations just do that kind of stuff in hopes the applicant doesn’t have the stamina to last through these processes?

The summary by the OIPC is clear.

“An applicant made an access request and a privacy complaint to the Board of Education of School District No. 43 (School District) regarding a single email communication between the School District and an independent school. Initially, the School District withheld the email under s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and disagreed with the applicant’s privacy complaint. However, during the inquiry, the School District determined that s. 14 did not apply and it disclosed the email to the applicant. It also acknowledged that it disclosed the applicant’s personal information without authority under FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the issues in dispute were moot and there were no factors that warranted continuing the inquiry. Therefore, the adjudicator cancelled the inquiry.” (https://www.oipc.bc.ca/rulings/orders/)

What do you think of this?

Keep in mind, that this process takes years to wait for an inquiry. Years.

The school district was then paying lawyers to defend them through all of this.

When you think of it…. this parent’s tax dollars were going towards a school district that was paying lawyers to fight them over documents they should have had access to and their privacy was compromised.

Don’t we have school districts complaining of lack of funding?

When reading the details of this inquiry. It’s very interesting….

[11] The applicant’s child transferred from an Independent School to a school within the School District (Public School).

[12] In 2019, the applicant asked the principal of the Public School if any staff from the Public School and the Independent School had communicated about his child. The applicant and the principal exchanged several emails on the subject.

[13] In May 2021, legal counsel for the Independent School contacted the principal of the Public School to get information about whether the Independent School and the Public School had communicated about the applicant’s child. The Public School’s principal responded by email on May 12, 2021. In this email, the principal summarized his efforts to determine whether the communications took place and included a copy of the emails that he and the applicant exchanged in 2019.

[22] The parties agree that s. 14 does not apply to the information in dispute and the School District disclosed the email to the applicant.13 Given that all the information in dispute in this inquiry has been released to the applicant, I find that any order I make would not have a practical effect on the applicant’s right to access the information in dispute. As a result, I find that the issue of whether the School District is authorized to refuse the applicant access to the May 2021 email is moot.

Very interesting. I have so many questions.

[31] The parties agree that the 2021 email constituted a disclosure of the applicant’s personal information that was not authorized by FIPPA.17 The School District submits the unauthorized disclosure was quickly contained because the Independent School’s legal counsel recognized there may be privacy concerns about her receiving the email and immediately deleted it.18 The applicant does not challenge the veracity of the School District’s claim that the legal counsel immediately deleted the email in question.

So…if I am understanding this decision correctly.. lawyers from one school cannot contact another school and obtain information about a student/parents without the consent of the parent, even though they are lawyers?

Good to know.

As always, a big thank you to the parents who saw this through to hold the district accountable and provide us with an opportunity for learning and understanding the system. I am happy to see they had an outcome in their favour.

Ok parent(s)/guardians, keep this in mind for custody disputes, family court matters, human rights complaints, etc.

For anyone going through this process, the OIPC has a guide for completing written submissions. https://www.oipc.bc.ca/media/17752/2024-02-26-gd-instructions-for-written-inquiries.pdf

Posted on

ADHD, Dyslexia, Dysgraphia – Human Rights Education Case

This is a new case that was posted on the BC Human Rights Tribunal Website March 26th, 2024. This is a timeliness application.

I have read through this case and I feel MANY families can relate to the details of this case or various aspects of this case.

It really deserves a full read, however I have pulled some paragraphs to summarize and give an overview. The analysis of this case by the tribunal member and their determination of whether disability was connected to the harm alleged is really important learning for us parents. It also describes how the tribunal interprets alleged inappropriate accommodations as potential discrimination.

I am also going to be emailing this case to the Ministry of Education and asking them to explain why they are not screening children in Kindergarten. Dyslexia BC has been advocating for this for years!

The Parent obo the Child v. School District, 2024 BCHRT 91

[8] The Child attended an elementary school in the School District from September 2015 until December 2020. He has dyslexia, dysgraphia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD].

[9] By the third week of kindergarten in 2015, the Parent alleges that the Child began complaining of constant nausea and experienced diarrhea and vomiting regularly. She states he told her that he was scared to go to school as the work was too hard and he could not do it. The Parent alleges that the Child’s physical ailments were only present on school days and he began resisting going to school, to the extent that he cried all evening before going to school and lay on the floor crying two to three hours before school. The Parent alleges this same pattern persisted throughout the entire time the Child attended the school.

[14] Around August 2018, before the Child started grade three, the Parent alleges that she asked his teacher if he may be dyslexic. The Parent says that the teacher assured her that her son’s situation was normal, and he just needed to keep practicing. The Parent says that she thought that by raising the possibility dyslexia to the teacher it would prompt the teacher to investigate the issue more thoroughly. The Parent says that she ultimately decided to trust the teacher’s opinion, which resulted in the Child not being appropriately accommodated for his disabilities.

[15] In September 2018, the School District conducted a functional behavioral assessment of the Child. Based on the assessment, in November 2018 the School District placed him in a literacy intervention group. The Parent alleges the placement was an inappropriate response to the Child’s disabilities.

[17] In December 2018, the School District created its first Individual Educational Plan [IEP] for the Child. The plan focused on addressing the goals of the Child attending school and managing his anxiety in a positive way at school. It also addressed various ways to increase his reading and writing to advance him from operating at a grade one level. The Parent alleges the IEP did not appropriately address the Child’s disabilities.

[18] In June 2019, the Parent alleges the Child’s IEP was updated with minimal change. She says that worksheets provided by the school over the summer were too hard for the Child to complete. Once again, the Parent alleges the School District’s attempts to accommodate the Child’s disabilities were inappropriate.

[25] In mid 2020, at the end of grade four, the Parent says that she realized the extent of the Child’s reading struggles as he could not read instructions or complete any online school without her providing him with extensive one-to-one support. She alleges his reading skills were much lower than the School District had previously indicated. At that point the Parent says she began doing in-depth research on dyslexia and other disabilities pertaining to reading. She then decided to pay for him to attend tutoring with literacy specialists outside of school.

[31] ……...The Parent stated that she felt incredibly rushed during a less than one hour meeting about the plan for the Child related to the new information and the complexity of the situation. She worried about several educators being involved who did not have training for children with the Child’s learning disabilities and processing challenges.…..

[34] Finally, the Parent noted her concern that as of grade three the School District had already started to consider the Child as not being a candidate for graduation with a high school diploma.

[37] In January 2021, the Parent says that the Child was enrolled in a private school equipped to meet his education needs. She says that at the new school, the Child received 45 minutes of OG tutoring at the new school every day with positive effects. By the time her complaint was filed in November 2021, she described him as a “different child” who did not complain about going to school and did not get headaches and have an upset stomach or diarrhea. The Parent says the Child was learning at grade level and was now being given the opportunity to be successful.

[49] After reviewing the information on file, I have further determined that there is a succession of separate acts of discrimination of the same character that are separate contraventions of the Code extending back to the spring of 2016. I address each allegation in turn.

[50] The Complaint alleges that on April 4, 2016, the Parent emailed the Child’s kindergarten teacher with his reports that he felt rushed when doing work at school, and despite his best efforts he felt he was too slow in completing tasks. The Parent asked the teacher if there was anything that could be done about this problem. The teacher responded with an acknowledgement that the Child did take his time with his work and appears to suggest that the Parent should reassure the Child that he could take time and not be so hard on himself. From my review of this event, I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out an allegation of discrimination where the Child accessing educational services experienced harms because the School District failed to accommodate the Child and did not meet his educational needs by only telling the Parent to tell the Child not to not rush or be too hard on himself. The harm incurred 12 by taking this action only was the Child not receiving a proper education. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make sufficient inquiries into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs in response to the Parent’s concerns. In my view, this inaction caused harm where the School District failed to discover Child’s learning disabilities such that he could then be provided with appropriate accommodations to prevent him falling behind. In my view, the Complaint alleges that the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[51] The Complaint alleges that in November 2016, the School District’s response to the Child’s reading difficulties was to send home alphabet cards and provide video links for him to work on sounding out letters and creating simple words. From my review of this event, I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs in this manner. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make sufficient inquiries into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs as opposed to sending home alphabet cards and video links to address his needs. In my view, the Complaint alleges that the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged. In my view, the Complaint alleges that the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[52] The Complaint alleges that in the fall of 2017, the School District addressed the Child’s ongoing reading problems by giving him sight cards to take home and providing him with some one-on-one reading support. At this time, the Parent noted her concerns that the Child was merely memorizing the cards and not actually able to spell the words. She also observed that he was guessing words based on pictures. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs in this manner. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make sufficient inquiries into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs as opposed to sending home sight cards and providing some one-on-one reading support. In my view, the Complaint alleges that the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged. 13

[53] The Complaint alleges that in August 2018, the School District’s response to the Parent’s concern that the Child might be dyslexic as he continued to struggle in school was to assure her that he just needed to keep practicing. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs in this manner in response to Parent’s concerns. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make sufficient inquiries into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs as opposed to staying the course with Child despite ongoing problems and the Parent highlighting the possibility that he could be dyslexic. Once again, I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[54] The Complaint alleges that In the fall of 2018, the School District’s response to the Child’s ongoing learning struggles was to conduct a functional behavioural assessment and place him in a literacy intervention group. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs by focusing on the behavioural components and not his disabilities. I am further satisfied the Complaint sets out an allegation that the School District failed to make the appropriate inquiry, conducting a psychoeducational assessment instead of a behavioural assessment, into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs. Again, failing to accommodate the child after a proper assessment is alleged to have harmed him by not providing a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[55] The Complaint alleges that in December 2018, the School District created its first IEP for the Child. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs with an IEP that focused on the behavioural components and provided ineffectual learning supports not indicated in the later psychoeducational assessment. Again, the School District is alleged to have failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disabilityrelated needs. It allegedly failed to accommodate the child after a proper assessment resulting in the harms related to not receiving a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in these harms. 14

[56] The Complaint alleges that in June 2019, the School District updated the IEP with minimal changes and sent worksheets home with the Child to do over the summer break that were allegedly beyond his capabilities. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs with a revised IEP that has the same issues as the first IEP. A further allegation is set out concerning sending home inappropriate worksheets over the summer. Once again, the School District is alleged to have failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs. It allegedly harmed the Child by not providing him with a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[57] The Complaint alleges that in September 2019, the Child’s grade four teacher admitted she was unaware of him having an IEP and provided him with grade two spelling lists work as an accommodation of his disability. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs by sending home grade two spelling lists for him to work on. Once again, the School District is alleged to have failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs. It allegedly harmed the Child by not providing a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[58] The Complaint alleges in February 2020, the School District’s lack of response to the Parent’s concern that the Child was reversing letters on his written tests is an allegation of discrimination. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs in the face of dyslexia symptoms. Once again, the School District is alleged to have failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability-related needs. It allegedly harmed the Child by not providing a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[59] The Complaint alleges on November 4, 2020, that the revised IEP implementing the October 27, 2020, psychoeducational report findings is an allegation of discrimination where it relied on the Parent to organize and pay for the Child’s OG tutoring and inappropriately 15 continued to focus on treating his anxiety. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by addressing his learning disability needs with a revised IEP not properly guided by the psychoeducational assessment resulting in the Child not receiving a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[60] The Complaint alleges on November 5, 2020, that the school principal was unwilling to guarantee that the Child would receive tutoring from someone trained in OG tutoring is an allegation of discrimination for the purposes of this decision. I am satisfied that the Complaint sets out allegations of discrimination where the School District failed to accommodate the Child by committing to provide him with an appropriately trained tutor necessary to meet his learning disability needs. This resulted in the Child not receiving a proper education. I find the Child’s disability was a factor in the harms alleged.

[61] To summarize, the materials before me set out a series of discrete allegations of discrimination incidents involving the School District’s repeated failures to appropriately accommodate the Child’s disability over the five years that he attended school within the School District. These incidents involved the trial of various inappropriate intervention activities, inappropriate IEPs and an inappropriate assessment. All these actions attempting to address the Child’s learning disabilities allegedly resulted in harms related to the Child not receiving a proper education. Further, for much of the period in question, the School District failed to make the appropriate inquiry into the nature and extent of the Child’s disability related needs by way of a psychoeducational assessment.

[65] In concluding there were no significant gaps in this case, I have considered the Parent’s submissions and evidence indicating she was actively engaged in the Child’s education during his time out of school over the years. For example, she participated extensively in the take home activities prescribed by the School District while actively pursuing guidance from his teachers, the school counsellor, and the principal. In my view, the Parent remained very much engaged in the accommodation process throughout the years and this lessens the significance of any gaps between the discrete instances of discrimination outlined above. As an active participant in the School District’s ongoing accommodation of the Child’s learning disabilities, I see less significance in the gaps of months between the discrete allegations. While it is possible 17 to say the Parent had numerous opportunities to file a complaint, the information before me indicates that she was actively engaged as a participant in the accommodation process between events where the issue of accommodation arose, which lessens the significance of the gaps in this case.

[67] For these reasons, the complaint is accepted for filing as it alleges a continuing contravention of the Code.

Posted on

Family Status – Human Rights Complaints in Education

Here is some clarity to something that can be confusing when it comes to parents adding themselves to their child’s human rights complaint in education. (Your complaint will also need to pass the discrimination test.)

You need to file separate complaints. One for your child and one for you. Then, when and if they are both accepted, then you need to file an application to join them.

As a parent, it makes logical sense in our head to just include ourselves in our child’s complaint because we see everything so connected, but that is not the process that one needs to go through. So, to save yourself some time in further applications and playing catch up, when you file your child’s complaint, also file a separate complaint for you. Wait to see if both are accepted and then you need to file a 7.1 Form to join the complaints.

Here is the application page. You will want Application Form 7.1 – General Application. If you go to page 2 of 7, on that list, 7th on the list down, you will see “Join two or more complaints”

It is highly likely that the respondents will be making submissions for them not to be joined, or to dismiss your complaint. So, just mentally be prepared for that.

Here is the groundbreaking case that brought this option out in the open. So thankful for this brave parent.

Groundbreaking BC HRT – Accepts Parent on Child’s HR Complaint

Direct link on CanLII

You may want to quote this case directly in your complaint.

Also, keep in mind the one-year time limit for filing. If you file outside of the one-year time limit you may want to consider this case. Also, be aware that you will need to have evidence of the harm related to your loss of work or emotional harm.

Experience is such a valuable teacher.

If you have any questions, call the BC Human Rights Clinic. They are the best people to talk to about your complaint or any questions about the process. Processes do change, forms change, and with each new human rights case decision that gets posted – arguments can change. (This blog was written on Dec 21st, 2023)

Posted on

Responding to Dismissal Applications

Broe v. Board of Education of School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha) and another, 2023 BCHRT 157

There was a case posted today that I thought discussed dismissals in a very informative way. Anyone who is self-representing and needs to respond to a dismissal application must be aware of how they need to meet the criteria so that their case can continue through the tribunal process and not be dismissed.

In the case Broe v. Board of Education of School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha) and another, 2023 BCHRT 157, I find the following paragraphs to be very helpful. The written decision has cases attached for you to review as part of the decision to cite if necessary in your argument and to understand further. I have linked the cases for convenience.

There is legal language in these descriptions that you might have to do your own research on if you do not have a law background.

YouTube videos I find are the most accessible as they are aimed at teaching people who are not lawyers how to understand law. If one video doesn’t tickle your fancy, keep up the search. There are a TON of them out there.

From the case:

[4] The issue before me is whether there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Broe will be successful at a hearing…

[35] On such an application, the respondent has the burden to show the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The complainant must only put evidence before the Tribunal that takes the complaint out of the realm of conjecture. This is not a high bar: Ritchie v. Central Okanagan Search and Rescue Society and others, 2016 BCHRT 110 at para 118.

[36] In considering applications under s. 27(1)(c), the Tribunal considers the entirety of the materials filed by the parties to determine if the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The test requires more than a mere chance the complaint will succeed: Wickham and Wickham v. Mesa Contemporary Folk Art and others, 2004 BCHRT 134 at para. 12.

[37] In order to succeed at a hearing, Ms. Broe must demonstrate she has a protected characteristic; that she experienced an adverse impact in relation to her employment; and that there was a nexus between that protected characteristic and the adverse impact alleged: Moore v. British Columbia, 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.

[38] To establish a justification defence at a hearing, the Respondents must show they adopted a standard in good faith for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job and that it would have been an undue hardship to accommodate Ms. Broe: British Columbia

I also highly recommend you visit the Leading Cases page on the Tribunal’s website which lists leading cases depending on the reason for the dismissal application.

Posted on

Late filing – Timeliness of Complaint

This is a decision from the Human Rights Tribunal, posted in the September category for 2023.

The complainant filed the human rights complaint after the one-year deadline. These applications for late filing are very rarely accepted, and this case was accepted. They have dismissed cases that were one day or three days late. Brutal.

It’s also notable because it involves accessibility issues for a disabled student in a post-secondary school. This case was considered novel because the student is autistic. See paragraph 44 for details.

Here is the case and I have selected a few paragraphs from the main case.

Schulz v. Camosun College, 2023 BCHRT 142

[6] Millie Schulz has multiple mental disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder [ASD], attention deficit disorder [ADD], and post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD].

[16] On January 4, 2021, Millie Schulz sent a letter to the College dropping out the MHA program. After noting their issues and barriers, they said they did not feel supported in their classes with CAL, which was only looking out the College’s interests.

[37] Where the delay is due to a disabling condition, the Tribunal has observed that it may be in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint: MacAlpine v. Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, 2011 BCHRT 29 at para. 42. Disabling conditions can include physical and mental ailments resulting in great difficulty coping with even the basic daily tasks of life: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170 at para. 21

[42] Millie Schulz argues their case is unique as it involves a complainant with ASD. While the Tribunal has addressed mental health discrimination in the provision of services, it has not addressed many of the issues impacting individuals with ASD, and their need for accommodation, especially in a school or employment setting. They cite one Tribunal case dealing with autism from 2011, which points out that the nature of adult autism and how it manifests itself in the workplace is poorly understood, and individuals with this disability are subject to stigma and stereotyping: Noriega v. B. C. (Min. of Children and Family Development), 2011 BCHRT 199 at para 28.

[44] While appreciating this case is quite common in terms of the Tribunal dealing with the accommodation of a student with mental disabilities in a post-secondary setting, I find that the 12 subject matter of accommodating autism, in particular ASD, is sufficiently unique to attract some public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed late filed.

[45] After weighing all the factors, I have decided it is in the public interest to accept this late-filed complaint. While appreciating a significant delay in filing occurred, this factor is outweighed by the reasons for delay associated with Millie Schulz’s mental disabilities and the novelty of the case. It is now necessary to address the issue of whether any substantial prejudice would result. C. Substantial Prejudice