Tag: #Barriers

Posted on

“It depends…”

People want to know what navigating the human rights tribunal system is going to be like for them. If it is going to be a lot work, or how many hours they will they need to have available for them to do it.

It all depends.

It depends on what your goals are.

Do you want a settlement for your child with specific remedies for them? For example, more EA support, a new school district policy, and/or settlement money. Currently, with the complaint process, the settlement meeting option is coming before anything else. Document disclosure, applications, case conferences, etc. Those all come after if the settlement meeting didn’t bring the parties together on an agreement.

If you want to take your case to a hearing, now we are talking about a whole other level. You are going to need to self-educate yourself more.

Everyone’s experience isn’t exactly the same and their cases aren’t exactly the same. Some parents are absolutely LIVID and that anger propels them forward into action. Some people are sad about how everything has unfolded, and they just want this to be over and move on. Some people need certain things to happen in order for them to move on. I find it also depends if you are in a public school or a private school. If you have a lawyer or if you are self-representing. It depends if your child is still in the school or if you have already pulled them out. It also depends very much on the complexity of your case, and how much learning you are going to need to do. Some people fear retaliation, while others see this process as protecting their child from retaliation. It also depends on who you are as a person and how much experience you have navigating systems. Some people have already been self-representing themselves in family court and so they already know how to regulate their emotions and go through the system. Their confidence levels are higher. Some people have support systems and are already part of advocacy groups, and/or they have other forms of emotional support in place. It all depends on so many factors. Some people navigating the tribunal system have had experiences of closure and peace, feeling heard. Others have felt it didn’t bring what they were looking for and it was a waste of time. For some people it feels like a big deal to file a human rights complaint, other people don’t think anything of it, just do it, and carry on in their day. It all depends.

There are a few common themes in people who file human rights complaints, that I have seen so far.

  1. They want change. They never want another child to experience what their child did. They want to change the education system.
  2. They want accountability. Having these people get away with what they did, they cannot accept. Part of this, I have noticed, is that people fear that they will just keep doing what they are doing and so this does come back to point #1, and not wanting another child to have the same experience.
  3. They want to be seen and heard. Having their child pushed off to the side, discarded as unimportant, just eats them away. Many of these parents have been receiving nothing but the silent treatment and filing a human rights complaint is a way of saying, HELLO!

Sometimes people want to know everything before they start something. Others feel it’s better to not know everything and just do it. Deal with things as they come up. For example, some people want to go to business school to learn how to start a business and some people just do it. It’s very interesting how people approach things.

What I do want to say is that you can’t depend on your experience being like someone else’s. It really can be so different depending on so many factors.

It’s impossible to predict the future. I don’t know what this experience is going to be like for you. One thing that I think is true for everyone, is that you will learn more bout yourself by navigating this system. You’ll find out where your boundary lines are, and what triggers you and moves you forward. Or, what you are willing to live with. I think there is potential for it to be an interesting journey, nonetheless. Advocacy always is.

Posted on

The Next Generation of Student Advocates

In the last year or so, we’ve had an increase in student advocacy throughout the BC Human Rights Tribunal Process. These students are doing things that not all adults can even bring themselves to do. Here is some hope for the future.

All of these advocates want to make some noise about their experiences. I encourage you to read their complaints in full. All four were able to experience different layers of success with their decisions.

Let’s take a look!!

Advocate #1

Vick v. Board of Education of School District No. 41 (Burnaby), 2024 BCHRT 104

[4] Ms. Vick alleges having a learning disability and other mental disabilities. She is a former student at the School District. Ms. Vick was a minor during the period when the allegations in question occurred and at the time she filed this complaint.

[5]               Ms. Vick alleges generally that multiple teachers at the School District were hostile towards her for being unable to complete course work on time because of her learning disabilities and mental illnesses. She says this occurred despite the teachers knowing about her disabilities.

[15]           In the August 8, 2022, complaint amendment, Ms. Vick confirmed she wanted to name the School District as the respondent in the April 6, 2022, complaint

33]           Ms. Vick is seeking justice for the School District’s alleged failure to accommodate her mental disabilities. She believes her case is unique and novel in that it involves a School District service provider failing to properly accommodate her disabilities.

[31] ….Ms. Vick demonstrated her maturity regarding the existence of the Code and the Tribunal process when she filed her first complaint with the Tribunal in September 2021 and this complaint on April 6, 2022, while still a minor on both occasions.

Two complaints she has filed. Good for her. As a way to enhance her justice seeking, here is a list of her allegations against the Burnaby School District from her complaint filed in 2022.

[7]               On January 1, 2018, Ms. Vick alleges a teacher sent a rude email to her mother in response to her mother’s request that Ms. Vick be accommodated for her disabilities [the January 1, 2018, Allegation].

[8]               On July 1, 2019, Ms. Vick alleges a summer schoolteacher refused to provider her with any accommodations while her support teacher was on a break. She says the teacher also stood beside her desk, pressuring her to finish a test [the July 1, 2019, Allegation]

[9]               On November 1, 2019, Ms. Vick alleges that she asked a teacher for an extension of time to finish an assignment, but permission was not granted until her support teacher later asked on her behalf. Later the same day, Mr. Vick alleges she was told to leave the class during a manic episode, despite not acting aggressively [the November 1, 2019, Allegation No. 1]

[10]           On November 1, 2019, Ms. Vick alleges a teacher made fun of one of her disabilities by asking if she was manic in a joking and sarcastic way [the November 1, 2019, Allegation No. 2]

[11]           On June 1, 2021, Ms. Vick alleges a teacher who was aware of her disabilities acted in a hostile manner when she was unable to finish her homework on time following a “mixed episode”. Ms. Vick says the teacher later told her in an email that it was not discrimination to refuse an accommodation. Finally, Ms. Vick alleges the teacher later dismissed the class 40 minutes early preventing her from doing a mandatory presentation, which resulted in her failing the class [the June 1, 2021, Allegation].

[12]           On September 9, 2021, Ms. Vick filed a complaint against the Ministry of Education alleging it neglected to make reasonable adjustments in how it provided education to those with mental illnesses, including herself, which would reduce the negative effects of mental illness on education outcomes. Ms. Vick alleges teachers’ lack the training related to teaching students with mental disabilities. She also alleges teachers failed to identify children with disabilities needing to be referred for an assessment of their diagnosis. Finally, teachers failed children with mental disabilities as they did not know the options for accommodating their disabilities.

Advocate #2

Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another

Here are the allegations:

(37) Child K has a chronic health condition which impacts her ability to do certain tasks in a classroom, including writing. Mrs. Ehmke alleges that, throughout grade 2, her teacher failed to provide necessary classroom accommodations to meet Child K’s disability-related needs. She says that she asked the School to provide Child K with an Individualized Education Plan [IEP], but the School took the position that Child K was not entitled to one because her needs were being met through classroom adaptations. Towards the end of the school year, Mrs. Ehmke asked the School to apply for a Ministry of Education funding designation for Child K. The School declined to pursue a designation at that time. It said that it would address the issue in the fall of 2018, when the applications to the Ministry were due.

(38) Mrs. Ehmke says that, throughout the year, Child K’s school-related anxiety was escalating because her disability-related needs were not being met. On April 24, 2018, Child K stopped attending School because of that anxiety. She never returned. The following year, Child K enrolled in a public school, where she received a Ministry designation and an IEP.

This was an anonymization decision. The child and the parent were fighting to be named and name the school. The tribunal took caution and decided to name the parent and the school, and said that when she is an adult she can decide if she wants to change her name on this decision. It is noted in the decision,

[11]           In consenting to anonymize and limit publication of Child K’s name, Mrs. Ehmke is clear that her purpose is to preserve Child K’s right to choose, when she is old enough, whether to make her identity in this complaint process public to people outside their school and faith communities. Mrs. Ehmke describes Child K as a person who is “activist-minded” and is used to advocating for herself in connection with her disabilities. She says that it is not helpful for Child K to keep her disabilities invisible, and that most people within their school and faith communities are already aware of the circumstances giving rise to this complaint. These submissions are important to understand Mrs. Ehmke’s position about whether to extend anonymization orders and publication bans to other people involved in the complaint.

[12]           I anonymize and order a ban on publication of Child K’s name in connection with this complaint, unless or until Child K identifies herself as a party to this complaint after she is 19 years old, in which case the publication ban will cease.

It takes a lot of bravery to break through the stigma attached to anxiety and be a role model to others. Both child and Mom have paved a path by this decision.

Advocate #3

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

[2]               I commend the Student for her participation in this difficult process. She gave evidence that was helpful, straightforward, and credible, and which I have relied on to decide this case. I also thank the Parent and representatives of the District for their hard work and sensitivity in presenting their respective cases.

[114]      Finally – a note for the Student. It was apparent to me in this hearing that there are many caring adults invested in the Student’s wellbeing and development. She is an impressive young person with a sophisticated understanding of herself and her needs, and a Parent who is proactively equipping her with the tools she will need to continue her success into adulthood. I congratulate her on all that she has achieved, and wish her the best with what is to come.

Testifying can be intimidating and stressful for adults. She chose to speak up and talk about her experience. By doing so, this decision was written. This decision brought meaningful inquiry into the duty to accommodate and other advancements in The Code.

Advocate #4

Bigam by MacDonald v. Board of Education of School District No. 23 (Central Okanagan) and others, 2024 BCHRT 288

Given that the tribunal is always overly cautious about protecting the identity of minors, I assume that the teenager wanted to be named.

If that is true then ALL 3 advocates wanted to be named in their complaints.

Here are the allegations made by Advocate #3.

[1]               Faith Bigam, who has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis [MS], was in Grade 11 when a teacher allegedly prevented her from presenting during a school assembly at which she had been slated to speak [assembly incident]. In her complaint, she alleges that the teacher (Kathryn Lafontaine), the school principal (Kathy Weninger), and the school district discriminated against her based on mental and physical disability in the area of services contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code by preventing her from speaking and by mishandling the assembly incident after it occurred. She says that because of these events, she was unable to return to school and ultimately lost out on important social and educational opportunities.

[7]               According to Ms. Bigam, she was concerned that she would be bullied at George Elliot should the students there find out that she had MS. Ms. Bigam says that in Grade 11 she missed a lot of school due to health issues, which made it difficult to maintain her friendships. She says that she found it anxiety provoking to go to school. Despite these concerns, however, and with the encouragement of one of her teachers, Leslie Plummer, Ms. Bigam decided in early March 2019 to talk to the school about MS and living with MS. Ms. Bigam says: “I finally realized that it was important to me to talk about MS and to spread awareness about it in a positive way at school…” Ms. Bigam “thought it would be beneficial to the school, and to me and others like me.”

Another child and parent paving the path by exposing their complaint to the public.

**********

Learning to advocate for yourself and feeling the confidence and bravery to stand up for yourself does not come easy. Especially when you grow up in an ableist society and you are given these micro messages all day long that your rights are less than.

I can’t say how impressed I am that these four are speaking up for themselves and using their experience as examples for others to learn from and advance the human rights code. Just by having these decisions published for the public to witness and learn from is worthy advocacy. An interesting trend, they are determined to name themselves and the school districts. Is that due to anger? Justice seeking? There is so much stigma about mental health and disability and these four are pushing the boundaries on what can be talked about and not remain hidden. I wish all four of these students all the best and many many many thanks!

Posted on

Parents take Ministry of Education to Court – Win for Equitable Education

This case is a fascinating read.

Parents took the Ministry of Education in Alberta to court.

Kerber v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 98 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/parents-take-province-to-court-over-order-keeping-some-kids-out-of-classrooms-during-strike

There are two parts that stick out to me, that I think you will all find interesting.

The Ministry trying to disconnect from their own orders they create and the labour shortage paragraph.

Let me hook you in with this line:

[152]      The Charter guarantees equal access to education for all students; the corollary effect is that that the equitable principle must be applied in times of labour or resource shortages.  Here, what is apparent is that there was no consideration of how the reduced resources could be redistributed among all students.  It was assumed that minimal disruption to the system would result by targeting only a sub-set of students – those who use an EA. However, this approach failed to consider that non-disabled students might suffer the least amount of harm since they do not have the same disadvantages as the students with disabilities and could adapt to an at-home learning program more easily, i.e., some non-disabled students switch to at-home learning to free up more resources for complex-needs students, or some of them, to attend school in-person even with the EAs presently unavailable.

EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES MUST BE APPLIED IN TIMES OF LABOUR OR RESOURCE SHORTAGES. Woohoo! Thank you!

This case is in relation to a strike.

[1]               Approximately 3,700 complex-needs students have been advised by their schools that they must continue their education programs on an at-home or a rotating in-school basis because of the strike involving support workers at Edmonton Public Schools. This situation has persisted for over five weeks. 

Why?

Because…..

[7]               On January 9, 2025, CUPE 3550 issued a notice that it would be going on strike as of January 13, 2025. A range of support staff, including administrative assistants, clerks, educational assistants, food preparers, interpreters, library technicians, licensed practical nurses, speech language pathology assistants, and technicians have been on strike since that date.

So the Ministry of Education in Alberta did this.

[9]               On January 12, 2025, the day prior to the strike, the Minister of Education, Demetrios Nicolaides, signed Ministerial Order #002/2025. The Ministerial Order states:

I, Demetrios Nicolaides, Minister of Education, pursuant to section 4 of the In-person Learning Regulation, exempt The Board of Trustees of Edmonton School Division from the application of section 2 of the regulation to provide an in-person learning option, at the schools under its authority, to students who require an educational assistant due to complex needs where the continued attendance of those students at in-person learning may risk the health and safety of the student or other students or staff, subject to the terms and conditions in the attached Appendix.

Which means kids with complex needs are being excluded from in-person learning.

So 4 parents took the Ministry of Education to court.

[4]               The Applicants, who are four complex-needs students affected by the Ministerial Order, seek an interlocutory injunction suspending the operation of the Ministerial Order or, alternatively, an exemption to the Ministerial Order, until the summary judgment or trial can be heard and determined on the Charter issue.

The Ministry of Education tried to pass the issue and blame the school district. Saying the school district didn’t have to follow the order they were just given permission to do so. (OMG! Insert huge eye roll. I actually laughed out loud when I read this!)

[26]           Alberta argues that the Ministerial Order does not require the ESD to stop providing in-person learning to particular students; it merely permits the ESD to make decisions about at-home learning considering the safety of all students and staff within its schools in light of the strike action. 

The court saw through that BS.

[40]           While Alberta is correct that the Ministerial Order does not require any student to learn at-home, the Ministerial Order is the permissive enabling enactment that grants the ESD the authority to make decisions about which students must switch to full or partial at-home learning. Alberta is the correct party to name in this application.

So Ministries of Education across Canada, if you write discriminatory policies don’t blame the school districts for acting on them.

For those who like legal mumbo-jumbo, there are various forms of legal analysis in this decision.

The conclusion was that the parents won the injunction they were seeking.

And as mentioned before I really like this paragraph

[152]      The Charter guarantees equal access to education for all students; the corollary effect is that that the equitable principle must be applied in times of labour or resource shortages.  Here, what is apparent is that there was no consideration of how the reduced resources could be redistributed among all students.  It was assumed that minimal disruption to the system would result by targeting only a sub-set of students – those who use an EA. However, this approach failed to consider that non-disabled students might suffer the least amount of harm since they do not have the same disadvantages as the students with disabilities and could adapt to an at-home learning program more easily, i.e., some non-disabled students switch to at-home learning to free up more resources for complex-needs students, or some of them, to attend school in-person even with the EAs presently unavailable.

And yes I too would like to thank these parents for bringing forward education cases under legal analysis.

[161]      I wish to thank counsel for their excellent submissions.

[162]      I also wish to extend my gratitude to the parties and the families for their participation in this important issue.

If you want to skip the legal analysis and just go to the conclusion at the bottom, it starts on paragraph 153. Here is some of it.

[157]      The nature of the harm that the Applicants would suffer is significant.

[158]      The nature of the legislation under attack is the provision of education – a fundamental service owed to all young people.

[159]      The public interest lies in ensuring equitable treatment of all students during a labour shortage and a fair redistribution of available resources that does not discriminate based on a disability.

Posted on

New HRT Decision – EA taken away, IEP – VERY Informative!

We have another recent decision from the HRT and there is a LOAD of interesting stuff in here!

This is a dismissal application.

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

Many thanks to the parent(s)/guardians who stuck it through and brought this decision into fruition.

There are so many good bits in here, I am creating a list before you even dive into the blog. I want you to keep reading all the way to the end and get all good stuff.

  • IEP – what’s required to defend in a dismissal
  • The role of an EA – defence by the SD, 1;1 criteria
  • IEP written contract/legal perspective from the Ministry
  • Educational program required while kids are not physically in school
  • Ministry again dismissed in case, and why.

This is what the complaint is about

[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.

[8] P has disabilities including Down Syndrome, scoliosis, and other chronic medical conditions, including heart and lung issues.

[9] For context, P says her time at secondary school from grades eight to twelve included the following negative experiences:

a. Her one-to-one EA assistance was taken away by the school causing her significant trauma.

b. Her parents did not receive a book list or course outlines.

c. She did not receive homework as she was not being taught.

d. She was physically abused by other children while staff left her unattended.

e. She was forced to sit by herself without any form of intellectual stimulation.

Here is also what I find VERY interesting. The parents were alleging that the school didn’t follow the IEP. BUT because they didn’t specify what aspects of the IEP weren’t being followed, this portion of the complaint was dismissed.

SO! What do we learn from this? BE SPECIFIC. If you are going to be alleging your kids IEP wasn’t followed you are going to need to identify exactly what on the IEP wasn’t followed.

a. Failure to follow IEP

[24] I am not persuaded that P has taken the allegation that the School District did not follow her IEP out of the realm of conjecture. She has not specified what elements of her IEP were not followed during the 2019/2020 school year.

Got it!

So this was part of the complaint.

“a. Her one-to-one EA assistance was taken away by the school causing her significant trauma.“

I wonder how many other parents could be filing over this reason!

There are so many interesting things about this case. Something else that has come up a lot with students who are experiencing exclusion. School districts are still required to provide an education program even if kids aren’t physically at school.

b. Denial of at-home schooling

[30] School districts in this province are required to make educational programs available to all school-age children registered in the district. In certain circumstances, this includes at-home or “homebound” instruction. The School District has provided an excerpt from the Minister of Education’s Special Education Services Manual of Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines [ Special Education Manual ] which explains homebound programming in BC. It states:

School districts are required to make available an educational program to all persons of school age who are resident in its district and who are enrolled in a school in the district. School districts must maintain appropriate educational programs for students who are anticipated to be absent from school for extended periods of time. Instruction should be initiated as soon as possible. Authorization from the physician or public health nurse should be received prior to services being provide to students with health problems.

Students eligible for homebound services include:

· Students who are absent from school for medical reasons such as injury, disease, surgery, pregnancy, psychological reasons, etc. […]

[32] P says she required at-home instruction because she could not regularly attend school due to her disabilities. The evidence from both parties demonstrates that P was frequently absent from school for extended periods of time due to disability-related illness. A document prepared by P’s school from October 2019 states that P’s “attendance record throughout high school has been a concern – typical attendance is 10-20 days per year.” For the 2019/2020 school year, the parties agree that the plan was for P to only attend in person one day per week. Based on this information, the Tribunal could reasonably find at a hearing that P did not receive the instruction offered to other students in the district because she could not attend school in person for disability related reasons, and she was not provided instruction in her home. I am satisfied that this information takes out of the realm of conjecture that P’s disability was a factor in the adverse impact she experienced as a result of the School District’s decision to deny at-home instruction.

For parents whose children who have experienced a physical incident at school. If you want to tie it to rights-based advocacy (the Human Rights Code), you need to tie the behaviour to their protected ground (disability).

[55] While I acknowledge the seriousness of this allegation, P has not explained how her disabilities were a factor in the alleged adverse impacts of either the attack or the school’s response. Accordingly, although there is a contradiction in the evidence regarding whether this incident occurred, even if I accept P’s account as true for the purposes of this application, I am not persuaded that she has taken out of conjecture that there is a nexus between any adverse impact and her disabilities. For this reason, this allegation cannot proceed.

We already have a decision from the BC HRT, supported by the BC Supreme Court, that schools are responsible for providing students with a discriminating harrassment free school environment. See the successful case on bullying. “School Board has the duty to provide students with an educational environment that does not expose them to discriminatory harassment.”

Bullying or a one time physical attack needs to be connected to a protected ground.

Also in the case…

As usual, when parents try and link in the Ministry of Education, they always get dismissed.

[75] I agree with the Ministry that the complaint against it should be dismissed in its entirety.

Here is why

[73] …. The Ministry denies this allegation and reiterates that it is not involved in making decisions regarding individual students.

And the overall conclusion was that part of the complaint was dismissed, other parts continued.

Another part I thought this part was VERY interesting….

[48] The School District says one-to-one EAs are limited only to students who are medically dependent and require assistance with toileting. Generally, this is most often at elementary school and only occasionally at middle school. At secondary school, the School District typically shares EAs, to allow for independence and growth.

[49] The School District says that P did not require a one-to-one EA, because she was not medically dependent and because she did not require assistance with toileting. The School District says each class included a teacher and at least one EA to provide support. P always had an adult near her. The purpose was to build P’s independence, which was the most important aspect of her Grade 13 education programming. Due to P’s progress in achieving independence, the School District says she could do many tasks independently and safely under the supervision of staff. According to the School District, one-to-one EA support would not have been conducive to P’s independence goals.

Always know that the school district is going to argue anything they want. They can make up any reason/excuse that they want. That DOESN’T mean that the tribunal is going to believe them or accept what they are saying.

The school district’s lawyers will ALWAYS have a response for everything. It doesn’t mean their argument is a strong argument or that they have evidence to back it up.

You can argue back. The decision maker is the tribunal. NOT the respondent’s lawyers, no matter how convincing or confident they want to appear.

When we look at the recent case for exclusion (not this case, another one), the tribunal was asking…

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

[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

They bolded the anything else, not me.

If there is a negative impact on your child not having an EA, you need to document the harm.

Always remember that the district is responsible for removing barriers.

Not providing the appropriate support for them to access their education can be explained to the tribunal as a barrier. The lack of an EA could mean they aren’t providing your child a ramp. Just because the school district says only kids with medical needs&/toiliting support needs get a 1:1, doesn’t mean the tribunal will support that decision-making. The tribunal may feel the criteria for accessing an EA is discriminatory for other kids with other disabilities.

This is why bringing our cases forward for the analysis of the tribunal is so important and a strong form of advocacy. By creating these cases and decisions they are creating a path with street lamps for other parents to walk down when they advocate for their own kids.

Another part that is so fascinating is what they said

[68] The Ministry says that IEPs are not written contracts, as set out in the document “Individual Education Planning for Students with Special Needs: A Resource Guide for Teachers” (Province of British Columbia, November 2009) [ Resource Guide ]:

Q: Should the IEP be signed by the parent and a member of the school-based team?

A: There is no provincial requirement for signatures on an IEP. It should be clear to parents that IEPs are not written contracts, but rather working documents into which they have input along with the staff who work directly with the student. Some schools include signatures on a separate page to document who was present and who received a copy of the IEP.

[70] However, the Ministry disagrees that just because IEPs do not require a parent’s signature the School District is not required to adhere to them. The Ministry says IEPs do have a legal effect and function, as there is a valid legislative and policy framework that provides both authority and guidance for IEPs.

For parents self-representing, you will probably want to keep this case handy to use in your arguments to the tribunal.

A BIG THANK YOU to KD who is self-representing P. This decision is LOADED with helpful information.

Posted on

Individual Education Plan (IEP) – They aren’t just Words on a Page

IEP’s can play an important role in providing your child an equitable education.

As written in the human rights decision P (by KD) v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) and another, 2025 BCHRT 62 the Ministry of Education made it clear:

[70] …..The Ministry says IEPs do have a legal effect and function, as there is a valid legislative and policy framework that provides both authority and guidance for IEPs.

For more information about how the Ministry views IEPs in terms of a written contract or requiring a parent signature, please read paragraphs 66 – 71 in the above human rights decision.

So what do they mean by valid legislative and policy framework?

Authority School Act, Section 182 (2) (a)

On the Ministry of Education’s Inclusive Education website they say this:

“School Districts/Independent School Authorities have the autonomy to develop their own IEP template or choose the SMART Goal Template, or Competency Based IEP Template found on MyEducation BC. Specific templates are not mandated as long as the goals used have measurable outcomes.”

The Ministry of Education has an Inclusive Education Manual (2024), and section C is all about developing an IEP

Here is the Ministry’s Guidelines on IEPs for independent schools

Here is the Inclusive Educaiton list of policies and orders

If you are interested, here is a list of all of the School Act Ministerial Orders.

Here is a list of their policies for public schools.

On your own school district’s website, they will also have information about IEP’s and the consultation process.

Here are two excellent resources on information about IEPs and IEP meetings.

The BCCPAC has a guide for parents specifically for IEPs

Inclusion BC has a guide for Inclusive Education. Chapter 5 is all about IEPS.

Two notable human rights cases:

  1. The duty to consult
  2. Student (by Parent) v. School District 2023, BCHRT 237 – Your child doesn’t need to have an IEP in order for them to be protected by the Human Rights Code

Something else very important to keep in mind is that the Human Rights Code Supersedes classroom teacher autonomy. Your child’s teacher has to follow the Human Rights Code. They can’t just say that they will not follow your child’s IEP because it doesn’t match with how they teach.

IEP’s are living documents. You can update them ANYTIME.

The final decision is up to the school on what is written on your child’s IEP but they must consult with you. And it needs to be meaningful consultation. If they tell you they are only giving you 30 minutes for an IEP meeting and you didn’t have enough time to discuss everything and you feel the IEP isn’t appropriate for your child, you can advocate that 30 min isn’t enough time for meaningful consultation. Some parents get letters being sent home that IEP meetings aren’t even happening. They get a paper copy and they are asked to provide feedback by email. umm. NO!!! If you want a meeting to discuss your child’s IEP at ANYTIME In the year, you can advocate for that.

If the school doesn’t allow this, then you can escalate it through the district and just keep going higher and higher.

For this human rights case X by Y v. School District Z 2024 BCHRT 24, the expectation for them to defend that they offered reasonable accommodations is this:

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

If they aren’t reviewing progress and changes and adapting their response to your child’s needs, you have internal and external complaint options.

There is already legislation, policy and human rights law that will enforce consultation. You can use these in your advocacy.

It is very important to keep documentation of all of your emails with the school and letters being sent home. If you are getting any communication that parents are not allowed to attend their child’s IEP meeting, you may also want to alert the Inclusive Education department in the Ministry.

inclusive.education@gov.bc.ca

IEPs have meaning. They are important. They are a tool.

If you have a teacher who is refusing to follow any of the legislative framework and policies you can always file a TRB complaint.

This teacher was disciplined for the following regarding IEPs:

During the 2021-2022 school year, the following events occurred while Schwarz was employed as a teacher in a learning support program at School A, working with a small group of upper elementary school students (“Class A”):
a. Schwarz failed to properly follow procedures for students’ individual education plans
(“IEPs”):
i. IEPs must be reviewed annually to reflect individualized goals, adaptations,
modifications, services and measures for tracking progress. Teachers must
offer parents an opportunity to consult about their child’s IEP.
ii. Schwarz failed to plan appropriately for the fall 2021 IEP deadlines and
only updated the students’ pictures and changed the name of the responsible
teacher to her own name, before submitting the IEPs to the School principal.
Schwarz did not make changes to the substance of her students’ IEPs and
did not appropriately consult with parents regarding the IEPs.

You don’t need to accept teachers not consulting with you or not updating your child’s IEP.

You have advocacy options:

Internal – keep advocating all the way up the next levels. You will have an inclusive education department in your child’s school district. Inclusive BC in their manual, Chapter 7 is all about how to advocate in the education system effectively.

External – TRB, Ombudsperson, Human Rights Tribunal

Some schools automatically reach out in the spring for a review of the IEP. If your child’s school does not, and you would like this to happen, feel free to send them an email.

You also don’t need to wait for the spring. If at any point in the year, you feel there needs to be some changes, you can request a meeting.

Your child has a human right for an equitable education. The IEP is a very important tool that can help them have those accommodations in place. OH, and one final thing. Accommodations are not earned with good behaviour. Children with disabilities have a right to their accommodations because they are breathing.

Posted on

New Human Rights Decision – Professional Recommendations in IEP

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

More important learnings from human rights decisions!!

This is a dismissal application. Parts of their complaint were dismissed but the part that is continuing is the allegation that the school didn’t incorporate professional recommendations into their child’s IEP.

The human rights tribunal is accepting this as a valid complaint, and it is proceeding. This case can be used to enhance your advocacy.

[66] The Child alleges that the School Board lost or did not read many of the reports that were provided to them, and that as a result, the recommendations contained in those reports were not incorporated into their IEPs. Therefore, they say, the Child’s disabilities were not properly accommodated. The Child says that had the IEPs been developed in line with the medical and psychoeducational recommendations contained in the reports provided to the School Board, their Parents would not have had to intervene with private support services in order to keep the Child at grade level. They say that because the recommendations in the reports were not incorporated into the Child’s IEPs, the Parents were required to provide the Child with tutoring, vision therapy, and auditory therapy, along with other interventions.

[68] The School Board admits that certain of the recommendations contained in the psychoeducational assessment and other medical reports were not included in the Child’s IEPs. However, the School Board says that the IEPs developed for the Child “are consistent with the recognized supports for students with a learning disability like dyslexia within British Columbia.” They say that many of the recommendations from the psychoeducational assessment report in particular were specific to programs available in Colorado, not in BC. They say the IEPs that have been developed for the Child were consistent with the Child’s Ministry of Education designation and “the information regarding [the Child’s] learning needs”, including the provision of a learner support teacher as well as modifications implemented by the classroom teacher. They note that the Child’s progress reports indicate that they have progressed “well” and “overall at grade level”.

[72] While the School Board took steps through the IEPs to accommodate the Child, based on the materials before me, I am not persuaded that they are reasonably certain to prove they took all reasonable and practical steps to remove the disability-related barriers faced by the Child. This allegation will proceed.

We already know from X by Y v. Z that it doesn’t matter what their grades are, its whether the school district removed the barriers to access their education equitably

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

As always, I extend much appreciation and thanks to the parents who are navigating this system and bringing these decisions forward.

Putting the pieces together

Accepted human rights complaints

Posted on

Another new HR decision – Intersecting Identity – Self-Representing Parent – A win!

I have written so many posts that start with New HR decision that it’s starting to sound ridiculous.

So, yes this is another new one. I know we just had a new one a couple of days ago.

I can’t tell you how exciting this is. This is the month of April, only four months into 2025 and we are already at 5 decisions with more to come. This is going to be quite the year!!

Is the Ministry of Education and Child Care paying attention to all of this????

They better wake up!

Here we go.

Decision #5 – This parent is self-representing. They won. The complaint is fully proceeding.

Child (by the Parent) v. School District, 2025 BCHRT 89

This case involves a couple of protected grounds.

[3] The Child identifies as Black and of African race, ancestry and place of origin. The Child has a mild Autism Spectrum Disorder [ ASD ], which the Parent describes as largely diagnosed from his late speech and asymptomatic.

This is a timeliness complaint

What is interesting about this case from an analysis point of view is that there were gaps between the discrimination and multiple allegations were beyond the one-year time limit, and yet it was still accepted.

[25] Having found multiple arguable contraventions of the Code , that are both timely and out of time, it is necessary to next consider whether the late-filed allegations form part of a continuing contravention.

[26] I first considered whether the allegations are of a similar character for the purposes of determining the existence of a continuing contravention of the Code . The School District argues the timely allegations are dissimilar because the timely allegations involve different children at different schools. I disagree with the School District. From my review of the allegations in their entirety, I agree with the Child that they involve the School District’s failure to properly respond in series of altercations where white male students harmed the Child for reasons related to his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and mental disability. At the same time, the allegations are of a similar character because the Child alleges the School District’s repeated responses to all these incidents were unfair to him for reasons related to the personal characteristics identified. In my view, the similar character of these allegations is not affected in any material way because they occurred at different schools and with different white male children.

[27] I have next considered the existence of gaps between allegations. I have determined that there are no significant gaps for the purposes of s. 22(2) of the Code in this case. I disagree with the School District’s approach to this question by looking at the entire timespan for the allegations in question. In my view, it is more appropriate to look at the length of time between allegations to determine whether they occurred in succession. Here, there were gaps of half of year to about nine months between most of the allegations and these are explained by the somewhat randomness of serious incidents happening when the white male students engaged the Child. The only possibly significant gap in my view, occurred between the November 2019 incident and the Spring 2021 incident. However, this gap is easily explained by the fact that during most of 2020 schools were closed due to pandemic restrictions and the Child was not in physical proximity to the students in question.

[28] Overall, I am satisfied the Child’s allegations from the June 2018 incident to the Spring 2021 incident allegations are of a similar nature in succession to the timely October 2021 incidents allegations. As such, the Complaint is a timely continuing contravention of the Code and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to determine whether it is in the public interest to allow any late filed allegations to proceed.

There are multiple allegations of bullying connected to racism and what I would label as ableism.

Here is an example.

[13] On October 20, 2021, the Child alleges three higher grade white boys followed him into the bathroom and one of the boys intentionally slammed a bathroom stall door into his face. The Child alleges this incident resulted in him chipping his two front teeth. He alleges the School District principal and vice principal were unmoved by the incident and did not want to report it to the police. The Child alleges the vice principal kept blaming him for screaming and shouting and rolling around on the floor as an attempt to magnify his autism behaviour to justify the other boys’ wrongdoing. Once again, the Child alleges the School District protected the white assailants from receiving any blame for the incident. This allegedly included the School District saying that they did not know which boy had caused the harm to the Child. The Child alleges this incident was a good example of the School District’s staff demonstrating their inclination to favour white children in altercations involving him [the October 20, 2021, incident ]

I encourage everyone to read this case in full.

The other human rights case that was connected to discriminatory bullying is this one. I’ll be adding this case now to that page as well.

Way to go, self-represented parent!

Posted on

Policy – “Soft Policing”

Policy is known as “soft policing”.

Policy is not law.

It is literally a group of people coming together and making stuff up. Sometimes policy is based on evidence, and sometimes it is not.

School districts have a lot of policies. I highly recommend you go to your school district site and find the policies and the administrative procedures. They may not be located in the same area. Some district websites are easy to navigate, others not so much. It’s worth the hunt. Policy will likely become part of your advocacy at some point.

A huge role for the Board of Education in your district is to create, review and revise policy as needed.

When they update or add a policy, they will, or should, be posting it publicly for public feedback. This will not be an announcement that gets emailed to you. It will take parents/guardians to be alert to these kinds of things being posted on the district website and to follow what is happening in board meetings.

Many districts have an online option for attending board meetings. Which I really like. You can multitask while you have it on in the background. Or if you are finding a part particularly boring, you can turn off the volume. Sometimes board meetings are interesting. Drama ensues. Showing up in person can also be informative. See who talks to whom, and you can feel the energy in the room that you can’t do over video. There are opportunities to have conversations with the trustees during break or after the meeting that can be helpful.

I HIGHLY suggest you get to know your district’s school trustees. These are the people who are creating these policies, bylaws, approving budgets, making section 11 decisions, and overseeing the superintendent and secretary-treasurer. The board appoints these key people to their positions.

If there is a policy that you would like to bring to the board for consideration, you can certainly email them and discuss this with them. Their role is to listen to you. You can suggest amendments to the current policy, and next time they review their polices, you never know, your suggestions might make it in.

By reading up on policy, you may realize there may also be avenues for you to resolve your issues that you didn’t know were an option. For example, the whistleblowing policy. That is for everyone, not just staff. If you have someone in a position of power who is lying to you or being unethical, this is an option for you to consider in reporting it. Especially if you feel that the issues are not being addressed by the district staff. The whistleblowing complaints are reported to the board.

When there isn’t any transparency and people feel untouchable, it can lead to a lot of funky-monkey business in school districts. It is shameful when the system tries to cover it up. I hate to say this to you, especially if you are a new parent to advocacy. Please don’t be naive. This isn’t care-a-lot, and people in education are not sugarplum fairies. Staff have a fiduciary duty to their employers. Some of these people are wolves in sheep’s clothing. As you advocate and navigate the system, you’ll be learning who is who. Some people are genuinely the kindest and most caring people you will ever meet. The others…will become clear.

Something to keep an eye out for…as policy is not law and can be discriminatory.

Also a key learning – The Human Rights Code supersedes policy, when in conflict.

Get to know your school Trustees, their policies, and administrative procedures. If you want to make changes, email away.

Posted on

Participating in the Duty to Accommodate

If you are someone who is asking for accommodations for yourself at work or your child in school, we also have obligations under the Code to follow. If we do not follow this, than our human rights complaints can be dismissed.

Rennie v. BC Ambulance Service, 2025 BCHRT 104

[29] Further, Mr. Rennie obtained a medical letter dated April 13, 2015, from a psychologist. There is no evidence that this letter was provided to BC Ambulance prior to the present complaint proceeding.

[30] In these circumstances, I am persuaded that BC Ambulance is reasonably certain to prove at a hearing that Mr. Rennie failed to participate in his accommodation process by not communicating with BC Ambulance, and its obligation to accommodate came to an end. Therefore, Mr. Rennie’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of succeeding.

This complaint was dismissed.

We have to participate. This falls under the “Duty to co-operate in good faith”

Both parties are expected to do this. Both sides need to communicate.

If the school is ignoring you, keep all those emails that you didn’t get a response to. Those will also be important.

And…

If the school is communicating with you. You can’t ignore them either.

To read about the expectations and responsibilities of the duty to accommodate process read here

Some parents feel that the communication they receive from the school is meant to poke them or bait them. I highly suggest you read 5 Rules on How to be Untouchable. Also keep in mind the communication between the parties needs to be in good faith, so if you feel there is anything sneaky going on, always keep the emails.

The point of the communication and co-operation needs to be focused about figuring out which accommodations work and which ones don’t. Accommodations don’t need to be ideal or perfect, just “reasonable” enough to provide the person with “a ramp”.

So, provide documentation. Communicate in good faith. And one more extension from this topic for parents in education is the Duty to Facilitate. Very similar to this case, but for parents. Failure to facilitate a school decision can lead to your human rights complaint being dismissed.

Knowledge is power.

Know your rights and responsibilities under the Duty to Accommodate.

It’s a two-way street.

Posted on

New HR Decision (Section 11 & Timeliness)

ooohhhh gather around for this one!

Lots of interesting learnings in this decision.

Thank you, thank you, thank you to the parent who brought this decision forward.

It was a win for them personally and a win for us for this analysis.

Here we go. This is an exclusion case & Indigenous rights.

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

There is a lot in here, so I am going to list the important parts that I see.

  1. Ministerial order analysis
  2. Section 11 appeal was dismissed, HR complaint continues
  3. Timeliness application
  4. Ministry of Education dismissed

Respondents Defence Strategy

[10] The School District says that in April 2019, it decided to place the Student on a partial day program pursuant to the Ministry’s Special Needs Students Order, M150/89 [ Ministerial Order ], which states:……

(This policy is used as the school district’s defence to the exclusion in this case.)

[12] In or around 2019, the Student was diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Combined [ ADHD-C ], anxiety, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder [ ODD ].

[13] The School District says the Ministerial Order clearly applied in the Student’s circumstances. It says that shortly after the Student started kindergarten, her teacher raised concerns regarding some of the Student’s behaviours related to self-regulation and ability to follow expectations in the classroom, which indicated a need for extra support. The School District says these behaviours escalated during the period of January to March 2019, and included task avoidance, touching others, eloping from the classroom, disrupting the class environment, being unable to follow simple adult directions, and running through the school. In response, the School District says it began implementing more interventions and support for the Student. However, despite these additional supports, the School District says the Student’s behaviour continued to escalate to the point that neither her educational needs, nor those of her classmates, were being met.

The parent made a section 11 appeal

18] The parties agree that the Parent went through the following steps of the appeal procedure:

a. Step 1: appeal to the school principal who upheld the decision to place the Student on a partial day program.

b. Step 2: appeal to the Assistant Superintendent, Learning Services for the School District, who upheld the school principal’s decision.

c. Step 3: appeal to the Superintendent of Schools, who upheld the Assistant Superintendent’s decision.

d. Step 4: appeal to the Board of Trustees for the School District. The Board issued its decision on November 28, 2019, stating that they did not deem it appropriate to require that the Student be immediately returned to full-time attendance at school.

This is SUPER important – take a look at the reason for the appeal not being upheld

[20] The Superintendent of Appeals summarily dismissed the appeal concerning s. 2(2)(f), and an adjudicator rendered a decision dismissing the appeal under s. 2(2)(b) finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Student had not been suspended from school [ Ministry Appeal Decision ].

Because the student hadn’t been suspended!!

They do this a lot!

This is VERY important learning for us.

Ministry of Education – Dismissed

So the parent filed against the Ministry of Education as well. They were dismissed from the case. No surprises here. We have seen this over and over.

[31] The Ministry says there has been a clear legislative choice, as set out in the School Act , to divide the roles and responsibilities for K-12 education in BC between the Ministry and the School District. The services the complaint claims the Ministry ought to have provided have not been delineated as within the scope of the Ministry’s jurisdiction and/or authority and would involve an inappropriate intrusion into the role and responsibilities of the School District.

[32] Further, the Ministry says there is no evidence that it had any involvement in the decisions or actions related to the Student’s educational program. The Ministry provides funding and oversight at a high level with respect to K-12 education.

Ministerial Order does not excuse them from human rights process

Now this is SUPER INTERESTING!

[38] The School District argues that the allegations in the complaint fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Specifically, the School District says the complainant is improperly attempting to challenge the validity if the Ministerial Order through the Tribunal’s process. The School District notes that one of the remedies sought in the complaint is “changes made to the School Act to protect children who have special needs,” which is beyond the Tribunal’s authority. The School District says it has the legal authority to put students on a partial day program pursuant to the Ministerial Order, under section 75 and 168(2)(t) of the School Act . In this case, the School District says that the Student demonstrated behaviour which met the criteria for a partial day program as set out in the Ministerial Order.

[39] I agree with the School District that the Tribunal does not have the authority to overturn the Ministerial Order or to find the Ministerial Order itself invalid. Similarly, the Tribunal cannot order that changes be made to the School Act . However, I am not persuaded that the allegations in the current complaint are outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

See what I mean by the respondents will always have an argument.

The stuff they come up with is fascinating.

I gotta hand it to them, they are creative.

The tribunal’s response was this:

[40] Although reforms to the School Act are raised in the complaint as a potential remedy, I read the allegations as encompassing concerns about the manner in which the Ministerial Orders were applied in these circumstances, and the impact on the Student as an Indigenous child with disabilities, rather than the validity of the Ministerial Orders themselves. This is not a complaint challenging the non-discretionary application of legislative criteria, for example. The determination of the “educational needs” of a student with special needs or other students, as well as the appropriate alternative programming for a child with special needs, per the Ministerial Order, are discretionary decisions made by teachers or other School District personnel. These decisions, if influenced by the protected characteristics of an affected student, are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review.

[43] I do not agree with the School District’s characterization of this issue as one of jurisdiction. Rather, it is part of the human rights analysis the Tribunal must undertake in any case and would more appropriately be raised under s.27(1)(b) or (c) of the Code . Nevertheless, I consider whether the allegations against the School District raise an arguable contravention of the Code under s. 27(1)(g) analysis below.

[44] Accordingly, I deny the School District’s application under s. 27(1)(a) of the Code .

Woohoo!

Now, another benefit of this decision is that the respondents know that this argument wont fly with the tribunal. So, this case helps to whittle down their arguments. That is very good.

AND if this wasn’t interesting enough, we even get a timeliness application.

Timeliness Application

[50] I am satisfied in the current circumstances that the allegations form a continuing contravention, and the most recent act of alleged discrimination occurred within one year of the filing of the complaint. I am further satisfied that the allegations pass the “arguable contravention test.”

What is a continuing convention of the code?

[47] A complaint is filed in time if the last allegation of discrimination happened within one year, and older allegations are part of a “continuing contravention”: Code , s. 22(2); School District v. Parent obo the Child , 2018 BCCA 136  at para. 68  . A continuing contravention is “a succession or repetition of separate acts of discrimination of the same character” that could be considered separate contraventions of the Code , and “not merely one act of discrimination which may have continuing effects or consequences”: Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57 at para. 23  ; School District at para. 50  .

Here are some important allegations that give us a peek into what the parent was dealing with. Always know with these decisions, we aren’t getting the full picture. Decisions are written up to only include the information that is needed for the decision. There is ALWAYS more to the story.

a. February 1, 2019: The Student was put on partial days of school and was not allowed to participate in school activities or be in attendance with her peers;

b. March 1, 2019: The previous vice principal said: “it just gets to a point in the day where we just don’t want to deal with [the Student] anymore”;

c. April 1, 2019: The Parent was called to the school to pick up the Student because “she was having trauma triggered behaviours and several school staff including the principal, vice principal, and EAs had her cornered in the classroom and she was scared, trapped, and in distress;

d. June 1, 2019: The principal said to the Parent: “have you thought about transferring her to a different school?”;

e. June 1, 2019: The Student was separated from her class and was not allowed to be in a classroom with other children;

f. August 1, 2019: The previous Assistant Superintendent said school staff do not want to work with the Student because she is a “dirty girl”;

g. September 1, 2019: “Step 1” meeting with the principal to appeal the decision not to allow the Student in school full time – denied;

h. September 1, 2019: “Step 2” meeting with the Assistant Superintendent to appeal the decision not to allow the Student in school full time – denied;

i. November 1, 2019: “Step 3” meeting with Superintendent of Schools to appeal the decision not to allow the Student in school full time – denied;

j. November 26, 2019: “Step 4” meeting with Board of Trustees to appeal the decision not to allow the Student in school full time – denied.

In conclusion – public interest too!

[66] For these reasons, I find that the complaint is timely. Had I reached a different conclusion, I would have still found that the public interest favours accepting this complaint. The education system has been identified as a common area of human rights concern for Indigenous children: BC Human Rights Tribunal, (2020) “Expanding Our Vision: Cultural Equality and Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights” at p. 27; Ontario Human Rights Commission, (2018) “To dream together: Indigenous peoples and human rights dialogue report” at p. 40. Courts and Tribunals have taken notice that Indigenous women and girls have been, and continue to be, particularly subject to hurtful biases, stereotypes and assumptions, including that they are “unintelligent” or “people of low or bad character not deserving of the same respect, humanity and dignity as others”: R. v Zakuti , 2021 BCSC 2253 at para. 25; Lindsay v. Toronto District School Board , 2020 HRTO 496 at para. 23. Here, the Student as an Indigenous girl who has been denied full access to the public education system, requires that this complaint be situated in its full socio-historical context. The Code ’s purpose of identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination protected by the Code is served by this complaint being heard at a hearing on the merits: s. 3(d).

And here is this beautiful statement

Dismissal denied – Complaint Proceeding

[68] I deny the application to dismiss the complaint against the School District. These allegations will proceed to a hearing.

I really encourage you to read the case in full. There are a lot of interesting details in there.

Due to the parent’s persistence in bringing this case forward, we have some very interesting legal analysis that are advancing the human rights code. This decision is now an advocacy tool and we are learning about what we need to do.  The piece about appeals being denied around suspensions is very interesting to have this documented.

It would be interesting to see a section 11 appeal done if the school refuses to log it as a suspension. Topics to discuss amongst education advocates, the importance of exclusion being labelled a suspension.

A big thank you to this parent’s advocacy.