Tag: #Barriers

Posted on

What is Fatal to a Human Rights Complaint in Education?

A and B obo Infant A v. School District C (No. 5), 2018 BCHRT 25

I have heard of many families in very complex situations. Parents/guardians are struggling with accepting/agreeing to accommodations offered by the school that they feel very strongly won’t work. If you are thinking that the human rights process is a process you might be considering, there are important things to note.

I have pulled the paragraphs/parts of paragraphs from this case that I feel are important for simplicity.  I highly encourage people to read the full case to understand the context of everything and how a hearing and the Human Rights Code are applied. It is a layered case and the complexity of the situation is something many families can find themselves in.  

I’d like to also note, that even though we are reading this case, there might be information that is not written about that this family may feel is very important that was left out.

Let’s look at the issues this case brings up and how we can be prepared for them.

Some of the topics this case brings up are:

  1. The importance of documentation and having as much evidence as you can.
  2. Witness testimony from parents and education staff (credibility conflicts)
  3. The role and responsibilities of parents/guardians.
    • The duty of parents/guardians to facilitate accommodations
    • Parent/guardian credibility
    • Parents/guardians duty to cooperate in good faith

“If the School District initiated a reasonable proposal that would, if implemented, accommodate the Child, then the Parents were obliged to facilitate that proposal. Failure to do so is fatal to their complaint of discrimination.”

DIRECTLY FROM THE CASE:

[37]           I am entitled to accept some, none or all of a witness’ testimony. Where there was disagreement in the evidence, my findings and reasons are set out. Where necessary to do so, I have assessed credibility and considered factors such as the witness’ demeanour, powers of observation, opportunity for knowledge, judgment, memory, and ability to describe clearly what they saw and heard….(continues)

[38]           In resolving conflicts in the evidence, and determining whether to accept the evidence of any witness, in whole or in part, I have adopted and applied the test set out in Bradshaw:

Credibility involves an assessment of the trustworthiness of a witness’ testimony based upon the veracity or sincerity of a witness and the accuracy of the evidence that the witness provides. The art of assessment involves examination of various factors such as the ability and opportunity to observe events, the firmness of his [or her] memory, the ability to resist the influence of interest to modify his [or her] recollection, whether the witness’ evidence harmonizes with independent evidence that has been accepted, whether the witness changes his [or her] testimony during direct and cross-examination, whether the witness’ testimony seems unreasonable, impossible, or unlikely, whether a witness has a motive to lie, and the demeanour of a witness generally. Ultimately, the validity of the evidence depends on whether the evidence is consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole and shown to be in existence at the time. (Bradshaw, para. 186, citations excluded)

[39]           I find that the most helpful evidence in this case is the documentary evidence created at the time of events…(continues)

[42]           I have assigned relatively little weight to the Mother’s evidence where it conflicted with the first-hand accounts given by the School Counsellor, Principal, Vice Principal, and Teachers H, M, and G. I have found the Mother’s hearsay evidence considerably less reliable than the direct evidence of reliable witnesses, where there is a conflict.

[43]           The Mother acknowledged that she was probably not present for most of the incidents at school that involved her Child. At times, she had a hard time recalling events. For example, the Mother’s testimony on the psychoeducational assessment of her son was wrong by one year. She acknowledged that she was “out a year”. The Mother testified that there is no reason to dispute the emails that were authored by her at the time. The Mother testified “that is what I wrote at that time”.

[44]           During cross-examination, the Mother responded to several questions regarding her testimony about her Child’s version of events by saying that she did not know or was not there. She acknowledged that most of her knowledge of the incidents came through her Child. I find that her son was more likely than not motivated to minimize his involvement in some incidents when reporting them to his Parents, so as to avoid discipline. For example, the Mother described disciplining the Child in relation to an incident where he swore at the Principal. She described their punishment as “Draconian”. (In retrospect, the Mother regretted using that word in her letter). As another example, regarding the November 2016 Incident, the Child only reported to his Parents that he grabbed another student by the collar, whereas I find, as a fact, that the Child choked a student, pushed him over a railing, and spat in his face.

(Parents’ Obligations (Paragraph 248-260) ** Important to read in the case. This case was dismissed and discrimination was not found. )

[258] In summary, the evidence shows that the accommodation process of the Child at school was often frustrated by the unreasonable actions or inactions of his Parents. The Parents did not attend re-entry meetings after the Child was sent home from school; the Parents attended the first IEP meeting, but refused to attend future IEP meetings. After November 2015, the Parents stopped providing comments to draft IEPs that were sent to them for review. The Parents refused to participate in the creation of a Safety Plan for the Child. The Parents did not provide the requested medical and psychological information to enable the School to modify the Child’s IEP. The Parents rejected the Principal’s offers of an educational assistant, classroom change, pod change, and school change. The Parents interfered with and rejected the psycho-educational assessment performed by a school psychologist. The Parents opposed any involvement of the District’s Intensive Behavioural Team with the Child. The Parents refused to allow an educational assistant to work with the Child despite it being recommended by his teachers, School Counsellor, and Principal. In a letter dated May 2016, the Parents wrote that the Principal was the “root cause of all this mess”.

[248]      The School District is not the only party with obligations in the accommodation process. Rather, the parents were obliged, as the Child’s representatives, to work towards facilitating an appropriate accommodation: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 970. If the School District initiated a reasonable proposal that would, if implemented, accommodate the Child, then the Parents were obliged to facilitate that proposal. Failure to do so is fatal to their complaint of discrimination.

Again, I highly encourage everyone to read the full case. I appreciate every family who has taken their case to the human rights tribunal hearing level. Even cases that have not “won” are still beneficial. It is through their experiences and stories that the rest of us learn and therefore become better advocates for our children to navigate this current system.

TAKE AWAY LEARNING

Whether this is fair or unfair/just or unjust/right or wrong…to uphold a human rights complaint…this is what I take away from this case.

  1. We need to be so thoughtful in how we communicate with the school.
  2. We need to be solution focused.
  3. Our credibility just like the staff’s credibility may be a part of the hearing process if there are issues around credibility and the relationship with the school.
  4. We need to document everything and gather as much evidence as we can.
  5. We need to cooperate and facilitate accommodations and if they are not successful, document the failure. (Paper documentation, video, etc)
  6. We need help. We should seek guidance and advice from as many professionals and other advocacy support people as possible if we find ourselves in a challenging advocacy situation at our child’s school.

However, it is also important to be aware.

"Parental conduct or lack of parental authority cannot be used as a justification for not meeting an exceptional student’s needs;"

To view the document on CanLII’s website:
L.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1622 (CanLII)

"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."
[77] The Interim Decision sets out my reasons for issuing an order with respect to the first two points, as follows:
(a) School boards have an obligation under the Code to accommodate their students with disabilities to the point of undue hardship, regardless of whether the students are receiving any medical treatment in the community or not;
(b) School boards cannot order or demand of parents to place their children into residential psychiatric treatment programs and cannot deny or withhold accommodations to the point of undue hardship on the grounds that the student should be in such a program. While I have no evidence to show that this was the case here, that does not alter the principle;
(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.

*******
Here is the link to the case in full: https://canlii.ca/t/gmd68

Posted on

Human Rights – Deaf community – ASL access – Education

Another important win!

Go parents!!

“The decision says Carter is to be supported in the development of ASL, in accessing and being evaluated upon school curriculum via ASL, in communicating his safety and personal needs via ASL, and in ensuring he is not isolated from peers who are able to communicate with him.”

Parents of deaf child win human rights case against N.L. school district

Challenges in BC

CBC – Parents of deaf child, advocates express concern as B.C. college halts only sign language program in province.

ASL interpreter shortage in BC

Posted on

Why is Documentation so Important?

Because you need to take your allegations out of the realm of conjecture. A case example from the BC Human Rights Tribunal is below.

N obo S v. T and a School District, 2006 BCHRT 546 (CanLII)

[55]           In this case, N states that she is a single parent and has several serious medical conditions, and that, because of this, she has been unfairly treated by the respondents.  As examples of the unfair treatment, she states that the respondents have failed to return phone calls, delayed letters, failed to provide information in a timely manner, and did not properly investigate her concerns relating to her son.  However, she does not include details of any statements or actions on the part of the respondents which would support such a conclusion.  She states only that she “believes” that such a connection exists: that she “believes” that the respondents think they can make her go away by exhausting her; that she “believes” that if she had a partner, her child would have equal treatment; and that she “believes” that she would be treated with more respect if she were married, healthy and had financial resources.   In other words, nothing in the complaint takes the allegations out of the realm of conjecture, as the facts alleged in the complaint do not support a nexus between N’s marital status and disability and her alleged unfair treatment by the respondents. 

[56]           As a result of the above, I dismiss N’s complaint pursuant to s. 27(1)(b) of the Code.

*************

Allegations are what you are claiming to be true. Until they are proven in a hearing and a decision is complete by a tribunal member, until then, they are nothing more than allegations. Be careful about defamation on social media.

So, parents/guardians and loved ones of disabled children in the education system, what does this mean?

It means we need to be documenting EVERYTHING.

Keeping ALL emails, even the good ones.

Logging calls and dates, with who and what was discussed.

Follow up by email on phone calls to outline what was discussed and action steps agreed upon.

Keeping a timeline of events

Taking photos (if your child has been injured)

Take pictures of their school work and/or communication book/agenda

When you child tells you what happened at school, take your own notes and write it down. Email your notes to someone you trust to log the date, time and details. Record your child talking about school.

Email other parents and ask them what they know, and make sure they respond in the email and not the phone. The Human Rights Tribunal can take years. People’s memories will change over time, so it’s really important to get the documented information at that time.

If necessary for your own mental health, take yourself and your child to counselling. They can also write a letter or have their notes involved. If the counsellor is connected to the government services, they won’t be able to testify at a hearing. You need an outside counsellor.)

An added suggestion by Dyslexia BC @DyslexiaBC on Facebook is to bring someone with you to all of your IEP meetings. (That person can take notes and also be a witness.)

You need to be thinking about collecting evidence. Things that can be used as evidence in a hearing are documents, emails, doctors’ letters, counselling letters, counselling invoices, videos, photos, media posts, expert evidence, other parents’ witness statements/emails, voice recordings from meetings, anything that is relevant. Connected. Here is what the Human Rights Tribunal determines to be evidence.

(***NOTE: If you are an employee of the school district, recording laws differ for you. Please consult with a lawyer as case law around this topic fluctuates.)

In the same thread of thought, be careful what you offer up in your emails and conversations to the school district. They are also collecting evidence on you.

I will leave you with this case example below.

A and B obo Infant A v. School District C (No. 5), 2018 BCHRT 25 (CanLII)

A.   The Mother

[40]           Overall, I have found the Mother to be sincere in her testimony. She cares about her Child and became emotional when describing his feelings. However, I do not find her evidence reliable. I find her testimony not to be 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”. The weight, and thus reliability, of the Mother’s evidence was affected by the fact that her testimony was almost entirely based on hearsay and double hearsay. The Mother was not a witness to most of the interactions she described.

[41]           The Tribunal may admit any evidence that it considers necessary and appropriate, whether or not the evidence is admissible in a court of law: Code, s. 27.2. Silver Campsites Ltd. v. James, 2013 BCCA 292 at para. 39. I considered the Mother’s hearsay testimony to be necessary and appropriate because it directly addressed the critical issues in the complaint and there were no other witnesses available to present it. The Father and Child did not testify on these issues. I assessed the Mother’s hearsay evidence on a point-by-point basis, with the objective of ensuring that I could make necessary findings of fact based on reliable evidence: Radek v. Henderson Development (Canada) and Securiguard Services (No. 3), 2005 BCHRT 302 [Radek]. I have considered the following in determining the weight to give to hearsay evidence:

I have considered in each instance the reliability of the evidence, the necessity for its introduction as hearsay rather than first-hand evidence, the probative value of the evidence, and whether the other parties would be unfairly prejudiced or otherwise disadvantaged through my reliance on it. (para. 54)

[42]           I have assigned relatively little weight to the Mother’s evidence where it conflicted with the first-hand accounts given by the School Counsellor, Principal, Vice Principal, and Teachers H, M, and G. I have found the Mother’s hearsay evidence considerably less reliable than the direct evidence of reliable witnesses, where there is a conflict.

[43]           The Mother acknowledged that she was probably not present for most of the incidents at school that involved her Child. At times, she had a hard time recalling events. For example, the Mother’s testimony on the psychoeducational assessment of her son was wrong by one year. She acknowledged that she was “out a year”. The Mother testified that there is no reason to dispute the emails that were authored by her at the time. The Mother testified “that is what I wrote at that time”.

[44]           During cross-examination, the Mother responded to several questions regarding her testimony about her Child’s version of events by saying that she did not know or was not there. She acknowledged that most of her knowledge of the incidents came through her Child. I find that her son was more likely than not motivated to minimize his involvement in some incidents when reporting them to his Parents, so as to avoid discipline. For example, the Mother described disciplining the Child in relation to an incident where he swore at the Principal. She described their punishment as “Draconian”. (In retrospect, the Mother regretted using that word in her letter). As another example, regarding the November 2016 Incident, the Child only reported to his Parents that he grabbed another student by the collar, whereas I find, as a fact, that the Child choked a student, pushed him over a railing, and spat in his face.

[45]           The Mother’s credibility was also impacted by her acrimonious relationship with most of the Respondent witnesses. I have considered her contemporaneous correspondence in assessing credibility because it speaks to hear capacity to perceive, recollect, and communicate facts objectively. Together with her husband, the Mother repeatedly sent letters and other communications attacking the character of most of the Respondent witnesses. For example, the Parents wrote letters about the Superintendent to the federal government, provincial government, board of education, RCMP, politicians and others. When confronted with this correspondence, the Mother minimized the tenor of her communications and its effect on the Respondent witnesses. The Mother maintained that she and her husband treated staff respectfully.

[46]           The Mother also provided inconsistent testimony. For example, the Mother testified that she did not accuse Teacher G of racism. When confronted during cross-examination, the Mother acknowledged accusing Teacher G of favouring one child over the other, and the other child not necessarily being black. The Mother ultimately acknowledged accusing Teacher G of racism. She explained finding it “very frustrating” when Teacher G prejudged her son and did not follow guidelines.

Posted on

Who Does Society Care About?

This mom speaks the truth. Thank you Ashley Roberts, The Dsylexia Initiative.

ID: A picture of a head with the brain and mental health written inside. Four colour ribbons coming from the head. Text: It's impossible to fight for your child and not have your mental health be impacted. To a Mom her child deserves the world. To have someone invalidate that thought, that feeling, time and time again takes a toll. To sit in a meeting and hear no, or, in my opinion worse yet, the edubabble word salad to mask the no like you're stupid, takes a toll. We are bombarded with the message that to question is to teacher bash, that parents are lazy, worthless, stupid and the children are entitled POS's who need stricteer, better parenting. This masks the whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentalility, but of course no one is going to open up and admit that. While we fight an unielding system that absolutely does not care, our children are being damaged, and so we as moms are damaged further. Dyslexia affects the entire family and so mental health of the entire family is impacted as well. There is no way to fight and not pay a price. There just isn't. We must embrace the mental health aspect for our children, and ourselves. Bringing this awareness into the light will empower us all. Hugs xoxox.
.

The government distributes society’s resources, and this distribution is not an equitable one. It is based on the wishes of the majority of voters. 27% of people have disabilities in Canada. An article by The Tyee, “Why is Vancouver Funding an Extremely Expensive Private Dyslexia School? questions how these resources are being divided. I question funding for private schools in general, as they seem to be getting a good chunk of taxpayers’ money. Yet, only families who can afford to pay costly yearly tuition fees can access their services, while the schools are escaping human rights violations due to their private business structure. Funded by the government, yet given an escape pod via the “undue hardship” justification test of a limited private business. As this parent feels, some specialized schools are providing the supports that kids aren’t getting in public schools. This option is not available to everyone. You need money. Lots of it. Every year. You need the time, ability and transportation to get your child there. Private schools are an impossibility for most.

Currently, our system is prioritizing some kids over others by how they design teacher education post-secondary programs. Teachers aren’t being properly trained for inclusion. Deciding not to inform teachers about human rights and science-based accommodations is a decision. Surveys internationally are all coming back with the same data. In Canada too, Teachers don’t feel adequately prepared for children with disabilities in their classrooms. And here. And here. And I could go on… and on…. and on.

Children are always going to be vulnerable. They are vulnerable because they don’t have a choice to leave. When children with learning disabilities are not getting proper instruction and support at school they experience levels of shame, embarrassment, chronic stress, anxiety, fear and sometimes bullying. Children are extra vulnerable when they have disabilities. They are in an education prison. They are completely dependent on a society that is ableist, misinformed and sees them as an easy target or easier to sweep aside.

The kids get the message daily that they are a burden to society. Someone who should feel lucky to be tolerated. These messages become internalized.

There are some legislative advancements with the federal and provincial Accessibility Acts.

However, for Canada to become barrier-free by 2040 it would entail a complete culture shift.

Employers post these boilerplate disability statements about being inclusive. However, inviting us to the table just isn’t enough. We need to be included at a level that we are participating in changing the shape of the table. Expecting us to carry on and fit into the same rules, and think the same way, isn’t inclusion. It’s not diversity. It’s performative and useless. For autistic and other neurodiverse individuals it can lead to burnout, mental health issues, and employment issues.

We know that change within society takes time. It’s painfully slow, that is true.

While we are waiting for society to evolve…we need to acknowledge harm is being done. Significant life-altering harm. Let’s take a look at the harsh reality.

Kids are dropping out of school. 30-40% of kids with ADHD drop out of high school.

They are escaping to the streets. 80% of homeless youth have Dyslexia.

They are more likely to engage in self-medicating themselves with drug use.

Their risk of them ending up in prison is higher, leading to the over-representation of people with neurodiversity and disabilities in prison.

From Decoding Dyslexia Ontario
Impacts of unsupported dyslexia: statistics

This is not their individual failure. This is a societal failure. Just how people at the Oscars walk up to the stage to collect their awards, they thank all of the people who helped them along the way. They recognize that they didn’t get to that stage by themselves. Well, guess what folks, the kids dropping out, on the streets, self-medicating and ending up in prison didn’t get there by themselves either. We are failing them. Our education system is failing them. Society’s norms are not inflexible laws of gravity. We can change the structures of human systems. We can operate, function, interact and live differently. Our schools don’t need to function this way.

So, when we make our decisions…our laws, our policies, our education training programs…who are we willfully ignoring?

This question needs to be asked EVERY SINGLE time the government makes a decision.

Who is benefiting from this policy or law? Certain people are. It won’t be everyone. So who? Name them. Write it down.

Who is going to be potentially harmed by this policy or law? There will be people harmed in some way by everything they do. So who? Name them. Write it down.

  • Crowded classrooms push kids with disabilities out the door.
  • Underfunding schools pushes kids with disabilities out the door.
  • Lack of proper training of teachers and support staff pushes kids with disabilities out the door.
  • Attitudinal barriers towards kids with disabilities are pushing them out the door.

Adults are pushing kids with disabilities out the door.

Advocating for children with disabilities is hard work, but worthy work. However, I want to acknowledge there is a weathering process parent(s)/guardians all experience. We are slowly eroded by the constant dripping in the advocacy process and/or we become stalagmites building ourselves up by the constant dripping process. These two realities are often braided together.

We are desperate for adequate teacher training. I am not talking about workshops in universal design. I am talking about adequate training in specific disabilities and neurodiversity. We need early screening for dyslexia. We can’t wait for kids to fall behind in literacy skills in grade 3 or 4 and then to be on an assessment waitlist for 2 years that costs $5,000.00. That wait-and-see philosophy is pushing them out the door. It is a disaster. The inaction of our government is failing children and families. There was such hope with the Supreme Court Decision that there would be

How a Dyslexic Student Could Change Canada’s Schools by The Tyee (Nov 12, 2012)

“A momentous change for Canadian schools

If I read the Court’s decision (and the School Act) correctly, this and future provincial governments are now bound to provide funding that will ensure that all B.C. students, regardless of talents or disabilities, receive the kind of education set out in the School Act.

That would be a momentous change for schools across Canada as well — perhaps comparable to Brown vs Board of Education, the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down racial segregation in the schools.”

The United States has legislation. Where is Canada?

The government is failing children and families. It doesn’t make any friggen sense to not support children with neurodiversity and disabilities. When supported, kids with ADHD can thrive as adults. Dyslexic thinkers are also incredibly diverse thinkers. It makes no sense as a society to not help these kids flourish because it is possible. Kids with ADHD don’t even have a designation and dyslexia isn’t even a label that schools are allowed to use. “The term dyslexia is not commonly used in the educational system. It has been removed from legislation, policies, procedures and most teacher training programs.” Talk about erasure. We can’t ever shut up about this.

Even if you want to make the argument that the government has limited resources, it doesn’t even make any economic sense to be ignoring such a huge group of people.

We have 1.8 million Canadians with ADHD.

10-20% of people in Canada have dyslexia.

As a country do we want this or this? What on earth is our country doing??

For the good, the bad, and the ugly, no one gets to where they are in life by themselves.

No one.

Here are some helpful organizations in BC

ADHD Society of BC

Dyslexia BC

BCEd Access Society

Inclusion BC

Family Support Institute

Posted on

5 Rules on How to be Untouchable

(Or at least try to be…)

The school district and their lawyers are just waiting for you to do any of the following things listed below…literally sitting back, fingers crossed and waiting. They know what works. They do this all the time.

They can use your own decisions against you in multiple ways. Destroying your credibility at a hearing, filing a section 177 against you, getting your human rights complaint completely dismissed and with costs, shutting down complete communication with you, sending you a cease and desist letter or threatening a defamation lawsuit.

(And before we go any further, trust me, this blog is not from personal experience. For those of you who know which school district I am connected to, please don’t infer, none of these things have happened to me.)

This blog is from reading case law, newspaper articles, finding websites/YouTube videos of pissed-off parents and hearing their stories, hearing stories directly from other parents, and hearing through the grapevine ALLLLL of the multiple other stories floating around our community. This by the way is a national issue, not just a BC issue. So, if you are sitting in a small town in PEI, this stuff still applies.

To the people waiting for you to do any of these things… this is a chess game. It’s not a chess game to us, and its a hard pill to swollow just how strategic navigating the maze needs to be, but we need to realize that this is how its viewed by them. And we need to figure out what the rules are and follow them.

When we follow the rules, we are closer to being untouchable, and we can continue to advocate.

Here we go.

Rule #1 – Always be polite and respectful.

  1. Don’t be rude. Be polite and respectful. Always.
  • Losing your cool and sending in an email that is just blasting them, insulting them, threatening them, etc, etc. is an easy way for them to be all over you and be backed up by the tribunal and court system. This will open the door for them to file a dismissal and get your case dismissed and apply for costs, file a section 177 etc, etc. They are literally hoping you go this route and you make it really easy for them to control you. They can’t wait for this to happen.
  • Sending in your emails doesn’t need to align with exactly how you feel. Your emails need to be written with strategy in mind. Your intent can be to either to document what is happening with the purpose of gathering evidence, to communicate your child’s unmet needs in ways that they can’t claim hindsight later on and trigger meaningful inquiry, to be problem-solving to resolve the immediate issues at hand etc. But making yourself feel better to release the stress valve has the potential of undermining your advocacy and destroying the opportunity for the systemic changes that you are hoping for.
  • It’s a painful part of the advocacy process to think so strategically, but this skill is really really important. I think of it as, we need to become Cheetahs. Cheetahs are loving parents, and affectionate with their young. They are also the most extremely patient and strategic hunters. We need to be cheetahs for maximum efficiency. We can’t let our advocacy efforts be undermined and swept aside because we lose our shit. They will poke us and poke us and just wait for us to explode. We need to have other release values and when we interact with them, we are in cheetah mode.
    .

Rule #2 – No defamation, no naming

2. Don’t name or defame anyone on social media.

  • Defamation is a really easy hook to get you on. Defamation just needs to be said to one other person. It is ridiculous how fast they will jump on this.
    .

See news article below, click to read.

Mom threatened with legal action after questioning B.C. principal who’s now accused of misappropriation
2014 letter from school board lawyer warned against ‘defamatory statements’ about Tricia Rooney
  • That means on any social media site, in conversations with anyone else, you CAN’T name people. You are making yourself way too easy of a target.
  • I took a workshop on defamation. Here are my notes.
  • If you are in a heated battle with the school, keep your circle very small on who you let in. These need to be trusted people in your life. You can talk about your situation, just don’t name anyone.
  • Having fake social media accounts can be ways of interacting with support group FB accounts or posting anonymously can be a layer of protection that will aid in your untouchability.
  • Parents have had human rights cases dismissed and their social media posts were used against them.
  • Trust me, they troll your social media when you become a red flag to them.
  • You never know who is in a Facebook group. Just like it is easy for a parent to make a fake account to protect themselves, it’s easy for anyone to make a fake Facebook account. Facebook groups are public, not private.
    .

Rule #3 – Don’t share confidential information

3. Don’t post content on social media that has the words CONFIDENTIAL on it. This again opens you up to them being able to threaten you with legal action and having the ability to control you.

  • This includes anything from the government that is sent to you in a password protected file or simply has the words CONFIDENTIAL at the top.
  • And yes… this is how the system stays in control and keeps everything hidden. I know. If you want to present this information as evidence in a hearing, that’s a different story. Stuff that is hidden away under privacy laws can still be used as evidence at tribunal hearings and court proceedings. This again is about being strategic about what we do. Be the cheetah. Wait it out. If you play the chess game right, you’ll be able to present the evidence when you need to and maximize your efficiency.
    .

Rule #4 – Don’t protest

4. Do not protest a decision in a school by refusing to leave, or forcing your way into a classroom. Refusing to pick up your kid in the name of protest, I also don’t suggest. You are setting yourself up for a section 177 and you will be accused of not working in good faith with the school, you will not be following your duty to facilitate and your human rights complaint has the potential of being dismissed. If you refuse to pick up your child without good reason in the name of protesting, MFCD may be called.

  • Even if you adamantly disagree with the a decision that the school has made, they have the power to make those decisions whether you agree or not. It’s risky for them if they didn’t meaningfully consult with you, but the School Act and Supreme Court of Canada, do give them the power to make class placement decisions and reasonable accommodation decisions.
  • The only way to maintain your credibility and access to the school is to follow the internal and external complaint systems in a civil manner. I know, that they are the ones controlling the system and this isn’t going to be fair. Totally get it. It doesn’t matter. If you want to give them even more power and have them cut you off at the knees then behaving in a way that makes you non-compliant, or the staff don’t feel physically or psychologically safe around you will end up being a gift to them. It will be so easy for them to file a section 177. Next time you show up at the school the police will be called and you’ll be out the door so fast. Don’t do them any favors. Collect your evidence and nail them in due course. Patience.
    .

Rule #5 – Knowledge and your values are power

5. This rule isn’t a rule on not what to do, this is a rule on what to do. This will also help to make you feel personally untouchable.

  • Know your stuff. That means human rights law, duty to accommodate, and external complaint avenues. Learn as much as you can. Knowledge is power. Ground your arguments in evidence and documentation. Stick to the facts. Don’t over-exaggerate. Don’t lie. Your credibility is everything.
  • This to me personally, is so important. Following your values is the most powerful tool to be untouchable. When you align your advocacy with your values, and how you want to treat people, strength is unlimited. What is your fuel? Unfairness? Systemic oppression? Lying? Even though people may be playing dirty with you, or lying to you, navigating your advocacy with how you want to operate and interact with people can give you a sense of emotional untouchability. It’s called inner peace. And it’s priceless.

Be one with the Cheetah.
Make it hard for them.
Don’t be easy prey.
You’ve got this.

Posted on

What is the Human Rights Tribunal Take on Exclusion?

The timing of this decision was spot on.

This decision was released January 13th and the Ombudsperson announcement was the day after on January 14th.

Student Y by Grandparent S v. Board of Education of School District No. X, 2024 BCHRT 353

I have added this case to my list under the human rights cases tab. I have picked out some paragraphs, but I really encourage you all to read the full case to get the context of what happened to this child and family. The respondents applied for a dismissal and the human rights tribunal decided the complaint should continue.

There are a few paragraphs in this decision that got my noodle thinking, but for this blog, I want to focus on this paragraph below. Paragraph #52.

[52] From the materials before me, I am satisfied that the School District was actively and intensively involved in attempting to accommodate Student Y’s disabilities from the time that Student Y was in grade one up until the time that she was excluded from school in grade three. However, the question before me on this application is whether the School District is reasonably certain to prove that it “could not have done anything else reasonable or practical to avoid the negative impact on the individual”: Moore at para. 49 [Emphasis mine]. In my view, there is a lack of information in the materials before me that would allow me to conclude that the School District is reasonably certain to do so.

The author of this decision decided to emphasize the words anything else. It wasn’t me that bolded that in the paragraph.

So, this is my guess.

When the human rights tribunal emphasizes ANYTHING ELSE are they eluding to an alternative learning space?

A lot of districts have alternative learning programs for students who need alternative learning spaces. There has been a recent uproar over the closing of a learning centre in the Surrey district with parents and students very upset over its closing with media coverage and rallies. The school districts report funding issues. There was also another family who was in the media, and their son was in a life skills program, and he was excluded due to lack of resources. Without systemic financial planning from the Ministry of Education to keep these alternative programs running, they end up closing and students are still being excluded.

In the face of complete exclusion for some students from schools, will school districts be required to provide alternative learning spaces as their ANYTHING ELSE or face human rights complaints? The school districts already have the power to choose the education program for the student and choose classroom placement. This is from the Supreme Court decision Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, 1997 CanLII 366 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 241 (Notable paragraphs are: 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81)

What does the tribunal mean by ANYTHING ELSE? They have already acknowledged the school district was “actively and intensively involved in attempting to accommodate Student Y’s disability”.

We are at the brink of having Ombudsperson and possibly the Human Rights Tribunal (if this case goes to a hearing), set forth some expectations around the topic of exclusion.

After you read this case, what is your guess? What do you think anything else means?

Very interesting times ahead. Very!

Here is a case of exclusion from Ontario.

This case explained the Duty to Facilitate in the context of education.

Posted on

Settlement & Mediation Information

Here is some settlement and mediation information.

Fact Sheet from the BC Human Rights Clinic on settlement and mediation

https://bchrc.net/…/FACT-SHEET-Mediations-and…

Guide to Settlement Meetings from the BC HRT (BC Human Rights Tribunal)

https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law…/guides/settlement-meeting

How to Prepare for Settlement Talks

https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/…/prepare-for-settlement-talks

Mediation policy and mediation process from the BC HRT https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/policies/mediation/

If there is no settlement resolution, the respondents may decide to file a dismissal application if they feel they have made you a reasonable offer. https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law…/guides/dismissal-apps/da-7/

Settlement amounts have been noted by the BC HRT in decisions that settlement amounts are increasing. Just because they may apply, doesn’t automatically mean they will be able to force you to accept the amount. Their offer needs to be in the reasonable range of what the tribunal would award you. See this case below.

Bahrami Ghahnavieh v. SolidCAD, A Cansel Company, 2024 BCHRT 226

https://www.canlii.org/…/2024bchrt226/2024bchrt226.html

[33] However, I accept that the trend in Tribunal awards for injury to dignity is upwards…

[38] In the circumstances of the complaint, I find that SolidCAD’s offer of $4000 to Ms. Bahrami Ghahnavieh for injury to dignity is not within the reasonable range of what the Tribunal might order if Ms. Bahrami Ghahnavieh is successful at the hearing on merits. For these reasons, I deny SolidCAD’s application to dismiss the complaint.

The only person that can give you an idea of what would be reasonable based on the context of your complaint would be a lawyer.

Posted on

New Human Rights Decision – Denied EA Support – Complaint Accepted!

There is a new decision that was posted on the BC HRT website. All these decisions being posted by the BC HRT are so helpful to parents.

It’s always great to have decisions that give examples of the kinds of human rights complaints that get accepted and the public get a peak into the education system when they read the allegations. So many parents are always wondering….is this a human rights complaint? Well, not getting accommodations by failing to provide an EA is an example.

This decision is an interesting read. I encourage you to read it in full.

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

This is an anonymization decision but check out the first paragraph.

[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.

So…….

For all you parents struggling to get the appropriate amount of EA support for your child…which in recent years is becoming more and more of a struggle…here you go!

The BC HRT has confirmed that in this case the parent who filed a human rights complaint alleging the school district failed to accommodate their child by not providing him with an Education Assistant in one of his classes is an ACCEPTED human rights complaint which is proceeding through the process.

If you feel your child isn’t getting enough EA support, you have a potential human rights complaint.

For situations that are an emergency, you can apply to have your complaint fast-tracked.

Scroll to page 2 near the bottom. This is the form that you would fill out along with your complaint to fast-track your complaint.

General Application
https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/876/2023/03/form_7_1_print.pdf

If you are filing a family status complaint for yourself, you can also send in a separate complaint just for you. Here is the human rights decision outlining this as an option.
The Parent v. The School District, 2024 BCHRT 113
Here is the summary page.

If you are curious, here is what the complaint form looks like. You will need to be able to answer these questions. Complaint form.

For those of you who would like some help filling it out, you can ask the Human Rights Clinic or contact the people on this page.

You certainly don’t always need to file a human rights complaint to have human rights needs addressed. You can use human rights law in your own advocating. If things are serious, sometimes people will find a lawyer who can address the issues directly with the school.

Also, what is also very interesting about this decision is that school districts clearly do not like being named. So, you know what that means. Something to consider is…..naming them!

Specifically this case:

Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another, 2024 BCHRT 150

This tribunal member of this decision felt this situation was distinct from another case that named the school, but we still have decisions that are in support of school districts being identified. In this situation, the tribunal member wanted to err on the side of caution. I can’t blame the HRT for wanting that. It’s hard to predict what is going to happen in the future. If the mother is already creating online publications and has an internet presence, who knows.

It’s a shame school districts are so focused on fighting parents and not choosing the route of peace and resolution. It seems like they are so willing to spend taxpayers’ money on a ridiculous amount of lawyers’ fees instead of spending a ton less money and giving it to a child who experienced harm. The settlement money goes directly to the child, so even if they absolutely hate the parent, it’s not going to the parent. They really do provide the opportunity for people to sharpen their advocacy skills.

Posted on

Evidence of Harm. Effective Advocacy in Education.

Why is collecting evidence of harm so important? It will force the school to create action if the harm is related to their disability.

Part of an effective way to advocate for your child is going to be your ability to communicate with the school.

The information that you tell them is going to impact that effectiveness and also trigger certain human rights obligations. They aren’t allowed to just ignore a struggling student with disability related needs.

The Duty to Accommodate is established under section 8 of the Human Rights Code of BC.

In the context of disability, you will need to prove that they have a physical/mental disability that the school was aware of, that they experienced harm, and that this harm was connected to their disability.

If you don’t have evidence of the harm, you will likely have a decision that says you “haven’t brought your allegations out of the realm of conjecture.” You are going to need evidence.

We already have it written in a decision that not all negative experiences are discrimination. Their disability must be a FACTOR in the conduct.

X by Y v. Board of Education of School District No. Z, 2024 BCHRT 72
110] ….I accept that these incidents which X relayed to Y were upsetting to X. I appreciate that the interactions may have fed into X’s general feelings of unease at school, but the fact alone that these events may have happened is not enough, in itself, to establish that X’s disability factored into them. Not all negative experiences are discrimination. Even accepting that these incidents occurred, I did not hear evidence that could establish, on a balance of probabilities, that X’s disability was a factor in the conduct of the adults involved in these interactions.

So….. what does this mean as parents?

We need to document the harm. Pictures, videos, recordings, emails, etc. We need evidence.

We need to be able to communicate to the school and connect the dots for them, that what they are doing is creating harm.

As parents, we need to communicate to the school that our child is struggling and this struggle is connected to their disability. This will trigger MEANINGFUL INQUIRY. They must investigate and come up with solutions to try and decrease the impact of harm.

Meaningful Inquiry

[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.

[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.

We don’t need to necessarily say overtly, that we are considering filing a human rights complaint. We can communicate in a way that shows them we are taking these issues seriously and one way of doing that is to provide them with evidence of the harm.

It may be through pictures of what has happened or video, but it can also just simply be statements the child has made at home about school or drawings they have done or things they have written down. Feel free to quote your child. Emailing this to the school does create an evidence trail so that if things are not resolved and you do decide to file a human rights complaint, all of these emails will form part of your document disclosure and you can bring them to your settlement meeting.

The respondents (the lawyers defending the school district) are going to make arguments that the school’s actions are justified and that reasonable accommodations were provided.

However, we want to show that our child is still experiencing harm, and say that reasonable accommodations were not provided. That’s why we need evidence of the harm.

The school district also has the final decision-making power with your child’s education. Parents have a duty to facilitate. Even if we don’t agree with their decision we must not become a barrier to their decision or if in the future we file a human rights complaint, it may be dismissed. Here is the case that explains the duty to facilitate.

A and B obo Infant A v. School District C (No. 5), 2018 BCHRT 25

[248]      The School District is not the only party with obligations in the accommodation process. Rather, the parents were obliged, as the Child’s representatives, to work towards facilitating an appropriate accommodation: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 970. If the School District initiated a reasonable proposal that would, if implemented, accommodate the Child, then the Parents were obliged to facilitate that proposal. Failure to do so is fatal to their complaint of discrimination.

So, if their decision is creating harm, we are going to need evidence of that to show that what they decided isn’t working.

I know this piece of collecting evidence can be really hard for parents. They don’t feel that they “should” have to do this. They feel that this is being too aggressive and they don’t want to upset people at their child’s school. I get it. No one wants to feel that they are in an adversarial relationship with their child’s school.

When you advocate you can still be pleasantly persistent and communication doesn’t need to be adversarial. However, I haven’t known of any effective advocacy when parents put being viewed as “nice” as their priority, over effective communication.

Here is the Inclusive Education Manual created by Incluison BC for helpful information on how to communicate with your child’s school. Here is Family Support Institute’s Toolkit Resources on education advocacy. And I would also just want to add, that if things get intense…which sometimes they do. Please read my blog on 5 Rules on How to be Untouchable

Document

Communicate

Repeat

And if that doesn’t work….

You have external complaint systems

Posted on

Duty to Accommodate – Meaningful Inquiry

There was a very important case that was published by the tribunal in December of 2023 that highlighted some gems. Very helpful clarifications that help parent(s)/guardians in their advocacy.

  1. This case is proof that you don’t need a designation to be protected under the Human Rights Code. Many parents are rightfully confused by this and think that if their kids don’t have an IEP then they can’t file a Human Rights Code. Nope. Your kids just need to have a disability and this disability is communicated to the school. If you have a diagnosis letter that has been given to them, that really locks them in without any wiggle room.
  2. Self-advocacy expectations are defined. Thank goodness! Self-advocacy gets tossed around a lot in school districts. If anything happens about accommodations not being offered they will automatically blame the student for not advocating. Which is BS.
  3. Meaningful inquiry. Parents don’t even need to use the word accommodation to trigger an expectation from schools. This piece is absolutely beautiful.

I have picked out the paragraphs that highlight these gems.

Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237

Some important gems in this decision that I see are:

Meaningful inquiry

[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.

[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.

Around self-advocacy for children with invisible disabilities:

[90]           Generally, it is the obligation of the person seeking accommodation to bring forward the relevant facts: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 970. This can be challenging for children, and especially challenging for children with invisible disabilities. I agree with the Parent that children who require accommodation in their school are in a different situation than adults seeking accommodation. Though they have a role to play in the process, that role will be age and ability-specific, and the burden cannot be on a child to identify and bring forward the facts necessary for their accommodation.

IEP – For a Child with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Trichotillomania

[59]           This ends the period of this complaint.  However, it is important to note that, in the Student’s grade 11 year, the school developed an individual education plan, or IEP, for her. This IEP set out the Student’s strengths, learning preferences, and goals. It identified specific supports for the Student, including flexible due dates, ensuring the Student was not put on the spot in class, reducing workload whenever possible, providing a quiet learning environment, and frequent teacher check ins. It also established that the Student would meet bi-monthly with the school counsellor to work on her goals. The Student’s grade 11 counsellor explains that she saw the IEP as a way to reduce the burden on the Parent and to support the Student to advocate for herself. From the Parent’s perspective, this was a welcome development that should have been done much sooner.

[7]               In this case, there is no dispute that the Student has disabilities, namely generalized anxiety disorder accompanied by trichotillomania (hair pulling). She is protected under s. 8 of the Human Rights Code from discrimination in her education. This complaint is about the Parent’s allegation that the symptoms of the Student’s disabilities were exacerbated in grades 8 and 9 because of her experience in Language 10 and Language 11, and that the District failed to accommodate her disability-related needs in those classes.

** Even without a designation at the time, she is still protected under the Human Rights Code.

Mental Health Stigma – Failure to Identify Diagnosis

[34]           The Parent did not see this email at the time. From her perspective, the email was not adequate to appropriately communicate the scope of the Student’s school-related needs. It did not fully communicate what the Parent had told the counsellor, and what she had expected would be passed along to the teachers. She felt it was also not realistic to think that the Student would approach a teacher and ask to be excused; in fact, this was not an option that it seems the Student ever exercised. In the Parent’s view, the failure to identify the Student’s diagnoses perpetuated the silence and stigma of mental health and undermined the Student. The message contrasts, for example, with the communication that the Parent sent to the Student’s teachers at the start of her grade 9 year, which said:

Communicating and providing evidence of a diagnosis

[13]           In light of the Student’s barriers in advocating for herself, the adults in her life have had to take on a more proactive role. The Parent’s open and active communication has been critical to ensuring that the Student’s needs are recognized and met in school. Throughout the Student’s education, the Parent has let her schools know about her disabilities, and that she may require monitoring because she is unlikely to proactively seek the support she needs.

[14]           There is no dispute that, due to the Parent’s advocacy, various individuals within the School District were aware of the Student’s diagnoses before and during the period of this complaint. For example, in the spring of grade 7, the Parent provided the elementary school with a note from the Student’s psychiatrist confirming that the Student had a “long-standing diagnosis of General Anxiety Disorder”. At the Parent’s request, this note was placed in the Student’s school file.

** This is a very important aspect as this ensures that a district has a duty to accommodate.

From the Human Rights Clinic Blog, Stress, Anxiety and the Duty to Accommodate, they explain…

“However, she did not provide any medical information that said she had a mental disability.

The Tribunal dismissed Ms. Matheson’s complaint, stating that “an essential element of a complaint of discrimination in employment on the basis of mental disability is proof that the complainant either had a mental disability… or was perceived to be mentally disabled by the employer.”

Here is Ms. Matheson’s case.

The media attention that this case brought can be seen here.