Tag: #Barriers

Posted on

Getting Documents!

Alright, we have seen how the Ministry can “inadvertently” not disclose documents. (wink wink). Yeah right!

Lawyers not disclosing documents and withholding evidence they shouldn’t be, isn’t a new issue AT ALL! They can pull some sneaky shit. This is one area they like to take advantage of, and sometimes it takes a legal process to pry out the evidence. People who engage in litigation for their employment, deal with this issue more than they should. It’s bad, and I don’t want to normalize it. I am just not shocked at all that they had disclosure issues.

Improper conduct complaints have been filed at the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BC HRT) around this issue and I have read decisions when respondents have had to pay costs ($$$) if it discovered during the process of a hearing that documents were not disclosed.

Parents can file a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for documents to their school district requesting information about their child and personal information about themselves as well. If you want an example of how to write this, and have some added information about this process that is good to know, I have a Freedom of Information page. If you look on your district’s website they should have information about it. Know that they will view this as an adversarial move. Just be aware. They don’t like them.

I can tell you right now, you are NOT going to get all the evidence you want through your FOI request alone. It is going to take some time and detective work.

Because schools have risk-management and liability as the captain of their ship for decision making, they are NOT going to just roll over and give you all the evidence you need to be successful against them in a legal process.

You still may get some pretty interesting things in your FOI response package. I have. Some of it has been VERY interesting. They accidently sent copies of emails they sent to their lawyers during one FOI request. Another FOI request gave me an email from the external investigator trying to soothe the staff, saying she had experience with difficult parents. That gave me a good chuckle. Never thought I would be labelled a difficult parent for not wanting innocent children to be hurt. But the GOLD NUGGET evidence I had to get was through the Application process during my human rights complaint.

Let me tell you all about this little adventure.

I submitted an FOI request. What I got back was a lot of documents. They printed them off and shipped them to my house. Around 500 pages. Interesting. Other packages came digitally, so I don’t know why I got paper copies of this one. Other parents have received paper packages sent to their house as well.

I was chunking up the topics and going through everything. Then I put everything back into order. It was then that I realized pages were missing. It would go from 168 and the next page would be 172. ummm. hello. what?

Then there was this one document in particular, a very important email that I was never provided, that was sent to the staff in the school about my child. It was not in the FOI package. BUT. I had an email from the staff member who told me they would be sending this email out, so I knew it had to exist.

When you file an Office of Information Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) complaint, you have to go back to the school district and say, hey, I notice that __________ is missing. Can you recheck your files please and send it to me. When they don’t. Then you can file a complaint. Which I did. By the way, you can file a compliant too if you find the redactions questionable. AND they do push on that. So if they think they can hide stuff and get away with it, they absolutely will. You need be a detective. You need to read everything and look and see if people are talking about meetings, or communicating with people, or sending emails about things that you don’t have notes or copies of. (Also note, the school district will take all the extensions they are allowed to take. They will respond to you late, and make you come to them in hopes you lose it. To exhaust you.)

Now, a complaint with OIPC about missing documents mean you are filing due to an “inadequate search”. Basically, OIPC says, school district can you look more, and the school says, okay fine we did and we couldn’t find it. Then OIPC will come back to you say, they looked and couldn’t find it. OIPC is satisfied. File closed. …..eek…okay then…..

OIPC doesn’t have much teeth with this topic. But I still recommend parents file an OIPC complaint. More work for the district and it forces them to lie to the OIPC. If you ever find out that they weren’t honest, you can go back to the OIPC and re-open the file. If OIPC concludes they were up to no good, you could take that and give it to the Board of Education. Say, hey, your school district is not ethical.

So my file was closed. I did not give up.

I waited….

We reached document disclosure time. The respondents did not provide the email in their disclosure package. I asked them for it. They said they didn’t have it. I told them I was filing an application anyways, which I did. Years of being told they didn’t have it. I never believed them. The form to file an application for documents is Form 7.1 GA 9- tick off the box to order the other party to disclose documents.

Sent in the application and lo and behold. Guess what. (insert eye roll). Along comes the email saying that they found it in someone’s email inbox. This was an email that was sent YEARS ago. The district’s inbox doesn’t hold that much. I know that because I worked for them. They would have had to dig this up in their delete folder along with everything else they dug up. LIARS. If this email wasn’t disclosed they would have had a very strong defense that my child’s teacher wasn’t aware of their disability which would have been a game changer in their favour. So, this was a huge win for me.

Now about document disclosure in general. Which occurs after an unresolved mediation meeting. If they want to settle with you, you wont reach this stage. The document disclosure the lawyers gave me was friggen ridiculous. They basically try to overwhelm you with many pages of absolutely nothing. I wrote a report on a related issue I was advocating with a group of parents on, and it was 50 pages. They gave me that same report 12 times just connected to different people’s email as an attachment to make their disclosure bulk up. 600 pages of my own writing. Geez, thanks! Their document disclosure wasn’t anything I already had, and they resent me stuff I sent them back to me.

I had to FIGHT for every little piece of evidence that I got. And then when I was getting stuff through the MULITPLE applications I was sending. They were redacting stuff. I didn’t even know if they were allowed to do that or not. So I asked my case manager. They said I could ask to have it removed. So I did. And they were still sending me stuff not fully unredacted. So I had to ask again. I am telling you. Prying evidence out of them will take nothing but sheer persistence. But if they are fighting this hard to keep it, you know it is GOLD. And oh boy!!! Was it ever. Like fall of your chair kind of evidence. I can’t believe staff were putting this stuff in writing. I can tell you the district has since tightened up what they document. For parents who are now struggling with the district not willing to document anything. Sorry folks. I think I had something to do with that. The district learned their lesson.

Another thing I want to tell you about documents. If they keep resending you document packages and shuffling things around with new dates and new subject headings. You can file an improper conduct for that. Keep a list of all of the shady stuff they are doing to try and exhaust you. Wait until you have a bunch of good stuff and then nail them. The form to write an Improper Conduct application is the same as the 7.1 form just tick off the box GA12 – Order another party to pay costs because of their improper conduct.

Lawyers should not be taking advantage of the fact that you are self-representing. But some lawyers will do that. You can also file a complaint against them personally with the Law Society. Here is the Code of Conduct for Lawyers in BC.

Ok, so long story short.

  1. Be pleasantly persistent. Be a cheetah. It is going to take time. Cheetah’s are very very patient. File the complaints you need to file. If you lose your shit in the meantime, they will use it against you and you will go absolutely no where. They can file an improper conduct complaint on you too. Which they would love to do to get the case dismissed. You need to be extremely civil. Here are 5 rules on how to be untouchable. You want them to be the ones you can nail in an improper conduct complaint, if necessary.
    .
  2. They will not give you everything you need. You are going to need to be a detective. Wait for the right time. File your complaints. You are going to need to hunt for documents very strategically. Unfortunately if often takes the teeth of a legal process to force this evidence out of them.
    .
  3. If they start playing funky-monkey games with you. Don’t lose your shit. You have options to complain that they are not going to like.
    .

And that my friends is the tale of getting documents.

Hopefully you can use this information to help you all in your search.

Stay strong out there!

Posted on

The Tribunal Take on Witness Testimony

I find reading human rights decisions FASCINATING!!!

In this decision:

Castro Mosquera v. North Horizon Immigration Consulting Inc., 2026 BCHRT 61

The tribunal member goes into detail about how a tribunal member will interpret witness testimony!

*******

[15]           For all witness testimony, I start from the presumption that the witness is telling the truth: Hardychuk v. Johnstone, 2012 BCSC 1359 at para. 10. When making findings of fact, I determine which evidence is most plausible based on a balance of probabilities: Mr. S v. Cannae Holdings, 2018 BCHRT 47 at para. 12. When assessing which evidence is most plausible, I consider the credibility and reliability of the witness. I consider factors including the firmness of the witnesses’ memory, whether their evidence changed during cross-examination, whether the evidence seemed unreasonable, impossible, or unlikely, and whether they had a motive to lie: Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398, aff’d 2012 BCCA 296, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 392 (Q.L.) at para. 186. I also consider whether supporting or contradictory evidence exists, and whether a witness’ evidence is internally and externally consistent: Harder v. Tupas-Singh and another, 2022 BCHRT 50 at para. 6. Overall, I consider whether each witness’s evidence was in “harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions”: Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BCCA) at para. 11.

[16]           I can accept all, some, or none of a witness’ testimony, and I may attach different weight to different parts of a witness’ testimony: Meldrum v. Astro Ventures., 2013 BCHRT 144 at para. 4; Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275 at para. 18.

[17]           Overall, I am satisfied the witnesses testified truthfully to the best of their ability. There were several instances where Ms. Mosquera and Ms. Benkhalti gave conflicting evidence on significant issues. For the most part, I find that the conflicting evidence was the result of the misunderstanding between Ms. Mosquera and Ms. Benkhalti and not because their evidence was not credible or reliable. Further, memories surrounding certain events or conversations had understandably faded and some of the differences between the evidence of Ms. Mosquera and Ms. Benkhalti can be attributed to subjective interpretations and perceptions of the same incident.

*******

This person was self-represented and they wont their case. Even though the discrimination was due to a misunderstanding and it was not intended.

It’s a great reminder that discrimination is not about intent. You will not need to PROVE that they INTENDED to discriminate, just that they did.

Human Rights Code Section 2

*******

2  Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

*******

[8]               For the reasons that follow, I find that North Horizon discriminated – albeit unintentionally – against Ms. Mosquera based on her sex and family status. I also find that North Horizon did not retaliate against her contrary to s. 43 of the Code.

*******

She is getting over $45,000 in compensation. Click the link above to read the order and read that case in full.

Here is the discrimination test, and the justification test.

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

Improper Conduct – Hiding Disclosure

There is a new human rights decision out today, and it is not education-related. BUT, there is a part of this decision that I do want to highlight because what this person experiences is something parents need to be aware of. I struggled with disclosure issues. What a fight! Even if they tell you they don’t have documents, make an application anyway! Surprise surprise! It does exist!

Neske v. Sobeys Inc. (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 37

This person was awarded an extra $15,000 for costs due to the respondents withholding evidence weeks before the hearing.

*******

[156]      Ms. Neske alleges that Sobeys engaged in improper conduct by failing to disclose material documents until the weeks leading up to the hearing. She submits that during the dismissal application process, Sobeys selectively withheld key documents pertaining to its discussions about restructuring management in the pharmacy department, and that as a result, her complaint could have been unjustly dismissed. She argues that in the circumstances, Sobeys conduct was reprehensible and deserving of a significant award of costs. She seeks an award in the amount of her legal fees up to the date of the application to dismiss, with the actual amount to be agreed on by the parties. Alternatively, she seeks an order of $15,000.

[157]      Sobeys says that costs are not warranted in this case. It submits that the threshold for a finding of improper conduct is high and imports a notion of intentional wrongdoing or culpable action which a reasonable person would know is wrong, and which has a significant and detrimental impact on the hearing. It further submits that there was nothing improper about its disclosure in this case and there has not been any prejudice to Ms. Neske. It says that in its decision to deny Sobeys’ dismissal application, the Tribunal highlighted a lack of information about the elimination of the position, and as a result, Sobeys searched for and identified additional documentation which was disclosed in advance of the hearing.

[158]      I am satisfied that an award of costs for improper conduct is appropriate in the present case.

********

I had to file so many applications for documents, and then I was getting ridiculous evidence that was just GOLD. Also, I noticed a few months before the hearing, suddenly other documents were being given to me that I was never even aware of. They clearly didn’t want an improper cost awarded for them for only giving them over weeks before the hearing. But if they didn’t give them to me and the hearing occured and it was discovered during questioning that these documents existed, then they’d be in big trouble.

So, what do we do about this?

I have an idea.

This is where we can all work together.

I want to create a list of possible documents parents should request in Freedom of Information Requests or during the document disclosure phase.

Every time I learn of a new possible document, I’ll add it to the list.

I’ll start

  • Counselling intake notes or intake form
  • Union meeting notes. (When teachers are in trouble, they have a meeting with the principal and often a union representative)
  • School-Based Team Meeting Notes
  • Student File (The office one, counselling file, LSS file)
  • Work safe incident report form
  • IEP meeting notes
  • Employee file (paper and digital)
  • Complaint file at the Teacher’s Regulation Branch
    .

Anything else?

Teachers….. what other kind of documents do you all fill out?

I will start a new page with this list when I get some more info for people to refer back to. Let’s go team! Many hands make light work.

EDIT: Suggestions from others

Threat/violence incident reports

Attendance records with reasons for absence listed (many times being sent home is marked as “parent excused”)

All communication between outside agencies and specialists

Raw scores from any formal or informal assessments, including reading screeners

Raw scores from all standardized assessments

Principal incident logs (often maintained outside the student file)

EA logs or daily support notes

Behaviour tracking forms or data collection sheets

Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) reports

Union grievances

Posted on

Liability in Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good news is. And there is good news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a fine line we walk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message will self destruct in 5 seconds.

EDIT TO ADD: Jan 29, 2026

School Protection Program

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

[2] The School Protection Program [SPP] is an insurance program that provides school districts protection against liability imposed by law for damages to third parties, and all costs and expenses incurred in defense of such claims. The SPP engaged Mr. Neufeld’s previous legal counsel to defend Mr. Neufeld in response to the complaint. On February 26, 2024, Mr. Neufeld’s previous legal counsel withdrew their representation of Mr. Neufeld. Mr. Neufeld was provided with access to his previous legal counsel’s file [Legal File] and he proceeded to publish or permit to be published the contents of that file online.

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

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

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

See page 10

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

Including:

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

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

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

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

Here is the administrators handbook:

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

Posted on

HR Decisions in Year 2025

Here is a list of the BC human rights decisions related to students and education (K-12) that were posted publicly in the year of 2025. Only 2 decisions show parents/caregivers who had legal counsel, the rest were self-representing parents. These decisions are important as we learn how the tribunal will make decisions about similar issues in the future. They also can help us to elevate our advocacy and understand our rights. These complaints become part of the wider data collection on these issues that the BC HRT collects.

This does not reflect the total cases that were navigating the HRT, just ones that had public decisions. Cases that settle at mediation meetings, often do not have decisions attached to them as mediation meetings are part of the early stages of the complaint process.

January 24, 2025

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.

February 4, 2025

Child L (by Mother L) v. BC Ministry of Education, 2025 BCHRT 27

[1]               This is a decision about whether eligibility criteria for a government grant, set out in a regulation, could be a service customarily available to the public.  

February 5th, 2025

The Parent obo the Student v. Meadowridge School Society and another, 2025 BCHRT 29 

[1]               The Parent is the mother of the Student. The Student attended middle school at Meadowridge School Society [Meadowridge]. The complaint alleges that Rhys Clarke, a teacher at Meadowridge, sexually assaulted the Student during an incident in Mr. Clarke’s class, and Meadowridge failed to address the matter appropriately. The complaint says the Student was in a vulnerable position due, in part, to his Chinese ethnicity. The Tribunal accepted the complaint on the grounds of the Student’s race, ancestry, place of origin, and sex.

March 7th, 2025

P (by KD) v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) and another, 2025 BCHRT 62

[2]               P alleges that during the 2019/2020 school year, the respondents did not provide her an appropriate education by refusing her at-home instruction, one-to-one Educational Assistant [EA] support, and not following her Individual Education Plan [IEP]. P also alleges that the Ministry changed the requirements for IEPs which rendered them ineffective. Finally, P alleges that the School District caused her harm by failing to properly address abuse by another student and took her on an inappropriately long walk despite her scoliosis, which caused her pain and swelling.

April 4th, 2025

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

  Generally, the complaint alleges that the Respondents failed to provide the Child with meaningful and safe access to education. Particularly, the complaint sets out five allegations that the Respondents:

a.      failed to incorporate medically recommended accommodations into the Child’s Individual Education Plan [IEP] in 2019 [IEP Allegation];

b.      failed to consult the Parents in 2018 in formulating the Child’s IEP [Consultation Allegation];

c.      discontinued specialist support for the Child in 2017 [Specialist Support Allegation];

d.      failed to provide the Child with reasonable accommodation to assist them with managing their disabilities [Accommodation Allegation]; and

e.      disciplined the Child in a way that put them at medical risk as a result of their disabilities [Discipline Allegation].  

May 14th, 2025

Parent obo Student v. BC Ministry of Education and another, 2025 BCHRT 112

[1]  The Student is a young Indigenous child who has diagnoses of various mental disabilities. The Parents allege that the School District and the Ministry of Education [Ministry] discriminated against the Student based on her race and mental disabilities when they would not allow her to attend school full-time or participate in school activities with her peers.

No other decisions were posted after the May decision.

We will see what year 2026 brings us….

Here is a page I have created that collects links and decisions for advocacy.

Posted on

Systemic Impacts of Scarcity in Education

I’d like to bring up the subject of scarcity and the concept of applying the impacts of limited resources in the education system. It could be physical, social, emotional, or mental scarcity.

Limited resources change how people interact and behave at the most primal survival levels. There are already many scholar reports on how scarcity affects decision making and neuropathways.  Scarcity is when there are limited resources and people are not getting what they need.  Animal and human behaviour will change in these environments. When something is scarce, people will put a higher value on it. People will use social capital, aggression, secrecy or whatever strategies they can to obtain those limited resources for their own unfulfilled need. This is evolution and not a personality deficit.

Whittling the education system to bare bones and creating an environment of such limited resources will turn Mary Poppins into Cruella Deville in just a few months. Work environments can become toxic. Communication and information among staff can be used as a source of power.  Confidentiality among staff can be used as a social manipulation tool to build a sense of belonging or exclude.  Subgroups become even more exclusive. People are being set up to fail. It’s not personal. It’s systemic design. Evolutionary instincts will kick in, and not the kind ones. Stress bubbles will burst. People will snap. Children included. Recruiting and retaining quality educators for any length of time, will be challenging. This will have more of an impact on students with disabilities and those in marginalized communities. I repeat. This will have MORE of an impact on students with disabilities and those in marginalized communities.

Understaffing is a form of scarcity. When there aren’t enough people to fill the job duties that are required for functioning, and people need to step over their own job description boundaries to fill in for other people’s work, that has multiple direction points of impact. If it’s chronic, then you’ll see the ripple effects of scarcity.  Work environments will become “unhealthy” and over time people will become very dissatisfied with their work, ultimately pushing them out of the system and creating a deeper wedge in the cycle and it just goes on and on.  Underqualified staff just filling “the body” in the role, is not the solution.  Take a look at the number of job postings for school districts and take a look at the ones that are just continuously on repeat.  The districts are all in the same basket. They are even competing with each other trying to coax staff out of each other cities with advertisements.

School districts are extremely complex human systems. The number of connections and moving parts is overwhelming to me when I try to put this system into a visual representation. It looks like a large spiderweb post wind storm. Not only do I look at all of the individual parts when I look at a system, but it’s the connections and relationships and what is generated out of those connections that also makes my head spin. Now put this very complex system in a situation of scarcity. This has disaster written all over it.

The alarming fact is that the direction the current climate of education in this province is heading, will require people to become even more competitive over the limited resources. Money won’t solve all of society’s problems; however, chronic underfunding is definitely the fuel to this education fire…amongst other things.

Brainstorming exercise:

Let’s list all of the resources that someone seeks in the education system. (I will list a few, but really, I am hoping to encourage the conversation and for people to start making their own lists)

Resources in education. (Staff and students)

  • Social relationships- support, sense of belonging, attention, power, purpose
  • Mental stimulation, communication, information, choice, adequate training, knowledge, context & meaning…blog about context and meaning for students coming in the near future!
  • Physical space, food, water, access to washroom, fresh air, safety…and yes all of this applies to staff too!!
  • Access to tools to complete tasks/goals with success
  • Time to process, time to complete work, alone time, enough sleep – proper work hours (homework or class planning)
  • Currency – (staff) to access resources in their personal life and avoid scarcity

Now take all of those resources to function. Put someone in the situation of abundance. All the time in the world, lots of attention, all the communication and information they need to understand their environment. Now take the minimal of what you need and cut it in half.  Survival mode kicks in. You will have very different people on your hands.

If people have options, they will leave the system. We all have our breaking point.

Who is controlling the resources to this system?

It’s not the school districts. They may be managing…I mean struggling, with the system, but they aren’t the Wizard of Oz at the end of the road. The Ministry of Oz is hiding amongst ambiguous unanswered questions in their huge castle.

Provincial systemic issues, are going to need a provincial intervention approach, and will require a provincial response.  Let’s start with some resources, shall we? Adequate funding please.

Posted on

What Does Ableism Look Like in Schools? It Looks Like This!

When a teacher daily allows a student with a learning disability to fail their class, but does not even lift a finger to inform the case manager or parent, that is ableism and its discrimination. Disabled children failing, falling behind and being excluded without accommodations have become the normality of the education system. It’s so common, it is woven into the fabrics of the system.

They just invisibly slip through the cracks, while a detailed IEP sits in a student database system collecting digital dust.

The fact that the Ministry of Education intentionally doesn’t even track information regarding the human rights violations that are occurring across the province is an example of ableism. Disability issues don’t affect them, so they have the privilege to ignore it. Want to know how to systemically keep a marginalized group of people oppressed? Keep them off your radar to begin with. OH…and by the way…the group the people the Ministry of Education are intentionally oppressing, are disabled CHILDREN and their family unit.

What is even more profound is that these teachers who are discriminating are caring people. They love teaching and are inspired by the creations of their students. We think ableist teachers are lurking somewhere in the dark with DON’T CARE tattooed on them, when in fact that simply isn’t the case. When children are ignored and neglected in the education system by good teachers, that is obvious discrimination at its finest. The “other” students get their gifts, and the disabled students get left alone, left behind, and just….left.  There are lovely people out there in the world completely unaware of their own biases and the normality of disabled children failing, just blends in with the wall paper.  It’s not even a big thing. It’s just something that happens. Shrug.

This is very common in the education system, and the ableism these kids experience is then internalized, becomes part of their self-concept, self-esteem and identity. Want to know why kids turn to drugs and crime? Failure in the education system has been proven to be foundational in many of the peer reviewed journal articles. IT’s not that we do not know. It’s not that more studies are need to be done. We have all the information. Government is just biased, ableist and discriminatory and this shows in their government run and funded education system. It oozes out of the pores of all 60 school districts. It’s not obvious to the people who are not impacted by it. You need to look at the system and not just focus on what is there, but what is missing. Who is missing?

We need to flip this education system upside down and inside out. The future of their lives and our society depends on it.

Ministry of Education- It is time for anti-ableism leadership from your government.

Are we on your radar? Or will we continually be swept under the rug?

Posted on

Trying to Collaborate in Good Faith

Trying to collaborate in good faith and discuss “reasonable accommodations” can be the real murky (stressful) part of the accommodation process that has the most potential for disaster.

This is where we are at our most vulnerable.

Here is why.

(Please read every single word of the next paragraph. Twice if necessary.)

As part of the duty to accommodate, both parties are expected to collaborate in good faith. The accommodations offered by the school don’t need to be perfect or ideal for our children; they just need to be reasonable enough for them to be able to access their education. (Whatever that means.) Even though they have to meaningfully consult with us, the school gets to decide what is reasonable. We need to engage in the accommodation process and have a conversation about whether we think their suggestions for reasonable accommodations are going to work. They have the final decision-making power. Even if we don’t agree, if they draw the line in the sand and say this is it. We have the duty to facilitate that decision. Even if we think it is going to harm our kid. Then if it does harm our kid, we have to document it, and the conversation starts all over again. All the while, we need to be civil and can’t lose our shit. If they frustrate us and we shut down and stop engaging, we will have “frustrated the accommodation process”. In an employment situation, they can have your human rights complaint dismissed. However, this important case [L.B.v. Toronto School Board, para 77 (c)(d)], shows that in the education context, even without parental authority, the school still has to fulfill their legal obligations to your child. Just be prepared, they will blame you for everything if you file a human rights complaint. Well…. they always seem to do that anyway…but still. This case will be helpful.

Sounds fun eh?

If you are ready to rip your hair out, it’s not you. It’s them. They know exactly what they are doing as they drag you onto the hamster wheel and make you run and run and run. (Maybe the teachers aren’t in the know of these strategies, but the admin are.)

There are ways to get yourself off the hamster wheel.

These are not in any order of importance. Just a list of strategies to consider.

  1. Question and document their delay strategies as them not working in good faith. Or any other nonsense they do. You aren’t the only one who has to be collaborative. Delay strategies, ignoring you, dismissing your concerns, is not collaboration. How you question them will be the art of advocacy as to communicate what you are noticing, but not become adversarial.
    • Keep and log every email that they didn’t respond to and every meeting that was cancelled and delayed
    • Keep a timeline for how long things are taking the harm because of the delay
    • Email the list of concerns you have, and note the ones that have not been addressed or have a proposed resolution plan.
    • When you email, you can use the word “notice”. I have noticed that it’s been 3 weeks for us to have a proposed solution to my concerns outlined in my email Nov 12th: Concerns for XXXXX.
    • Another phrase that is good: “It is to my understanding….” And then state what you think, and seek clarification. Is my understanding correct?
    • Email sentences to use: “I am noticing….”, “It is to my understanding that….”, “Is it correct to assume…..” or “I am confused, can you please clarify…..”
      .
  2. Question the reasonableness of their accommodation suggestions – Ask for evidence. Without using the word evidence. If they want to argue that they are providing your child reasonable accommodations to the tribunal, they are going to need to have EVIDENCE to show that.
    • Again, we are using emails as our tool here as documenting is sooooo very important. We absolutely want to communicate in emails. If they don’t want to communicate with you in emails, that is a red flag. (They are up to funky-monkey business, and they know it.) One way of asking for evidence is to say, can you explain to me how this accommodation works for XXXXX? It is extremely reasonable as a parent to want to understand how their plan is going to provide “the ramp”. Ask questions, get them to explain it to you. Don’t let them use vague language. Keep asking questions until you understand exactly what they are talking about. They will use fancy-pancy language with you, hoping to intimidate you. You have every right to understand exactly what they are talking about. If they are not using plain language and instead use jargon, that doesn’t make them look good. What is the point of communicating with each other if we don’t understand what we mean?
      .
  3. Always ask HOW questions. They state your child does _______. Great. HOW does that happen? How. How. How.
    • The tribunal has stated in human rights complaints that the school is in the best position to have discretion to create your child’s education plan, so if they are the experts, then they better behave like the experts. It is their responsibility to investigate why your child is struggling and create a plan on how to remove the barriers. It’s called meaningful inquiry.
      .
  4. File external complaints. Many parents threaten all sorts of things, and quite frankly, not many people do it. They are used to hearing every threat under the sun, and they just sit back and wait for you to explode and leave. If you file a complaint, you will stick out to them. They will underestimate you, until you show them with your behaviour that you are not a doormat. Sometimes, bringing in external eyes and forcing them to provide evidence to someone that they are fulfilling their legal obligations is exactly what needs to happen.
    • All of the external complaint departments are silos. They are VERY specific to the issue you are dealing with. A lot of the time, people could file with all of them as they are possibly dealing with overlapping issues, but not always.
    • To understand which external complaint deals with what issue, please read my page, Resolution Options in Education
    • Also, When should I file?
    • Why does this strategy work? The Damage Period
    • When you should file is basically asking the question to yourself – if, after giving advocacy a chance, what are you willing to tolerate or not tolerate? When will it be enough? Only you can answer that question.
      .
  5. Section 11. In action – not making a decision is making a decision. The School Act Section 11 notes that a lack of a decision is still a decision. If the school is making a decision that “significantly affects the education, health or safety of a student,” you can appeal to the Board of Education.
    • To read more about this INTERNAL advocacy route, please read my page Section 11 – Appeal to the Board of Education
    • Telling the superintendent that you intend to file a Section 11 appeal should at least get you meetings with people in upper management.
    • Not many parents complain past the principal. So again, pulling in district eyes to your child’s school may be necessary. Some principals think they are untouchable. Sometimes we need to remind them that everyone has to answer to someone. It’s kind of how our society works. No one should be untouchable.
      .
  6. Leave if you can. This is an absolute option to consider. There are a lot of parents who feel that if they leave, then “they will win”. This is the emotional well-being of your child. The best revenge is living well. This isn’t a competition. Take your kid and give them something better. Sometimes the fight is worth it, and sometimes it is not. There is nothing wrong with making your child and yourself the priority. They don’t deserve your energy. There is nothing wrong with moving schools or considering other learning options.
    • I say this as someone who is an absolute fighter. My kids were getting better care when I started filing complaints than compared to when I wasn’t. So, for my situation, it was absolutely worth it to stay. Filing complaints is a form of advocacy to push the line, create needed data and change. We need people willing to get in the ring. At the same time, if you need permission to save yourselves and focus on the health of your family, you have got it. I’ll absolutely give it to you. Depends on what your history is or current life issues, sometimes fighting the abusive people in the education system isn’t your journey to take. In the same breath, “Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine.” ― Alan Turing.
    • No one else can make this decision but you. These aren’t easy decisions as they will impact your child, your family, and you. People just want to be told what to do. I can’t tell you what to do. This is your family, your life. Only you will experience and witness the benefits and consequences of your decisions. Whatever you decide, I hope you find peace.
      .

In summary, the collaboration process can be a case-by-case part that isn’t written in stone and will be very specific to your child. For this reason, there isn’t a cookie-cutter instruction manual on what exactly you need to be doing next. Some people are very collaborative and other people are focused on control and are not collaborative at all. A lot of it will depend on your own resources, perception, values, priorities, and personal situations. For that reason, the uncertainty causes families a lot of stress, and they are terrified of making a mistake. I absolutely encourage you to reach out to support groups, counselling, advocacy coaches and non-profit organizations that offer support. Don’t do this alone. You want to lessen your suffering? Reach out to others. You have a community out there who can sit in front of you and say “me too”.

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/