Tag: #Barriers

Posted on

What is Rights-Based Advocacy?

This is my personal understanding and definition of rights-based advocacy. I would answer that question by saying,

“Rights-based advocacy is when you advocate through the lens of the human rights code, use various legal authorities and policies to support your advocacy, and are communicating to the school your child’s unmet disability-related needs. We then advocate for the school to remove the barriers our child is experiencing so they can access an equitable education.” 

For this blog, I am going to focus on the second part.  

Rights-based advocacy doesn’t just include policy and law, but we need to be able to communicate to the school that our child has disability-related needs, and that they are experiencing barriers.

Now, the bottom line is that this isn’t really our responsibility to figure this stuff out. It’s actually the schools, and this responsibility is connected to multiple human rights decisions.

However, teachers aren’t trained in every disability and every combination of disabilities, and we know our kids. This is the collaboration part of the accommodation part. They have a duty to consult with us. We can contribute and assist them in creating an effective IEP by helping them identify our children’s disability-related needs and help focus their thinking on being able to identify barriers so they can make a plan on how to remove them.  

People don’t naturally think in this way, so this is a skill we need to learn as well and help our kids’ teachers to think this way too.

The system needs a lot of work, but it’s not going to overhaul itself tomorrow. Today we aren’t living in our dream education fantasy land, we are living in a chronically underfunded resource constrained system with high rates of burn out.  So given the cards that we have been delt, what is the best we can do in this situation to support our children in school?

Whatever situation our child is struggling with in school we need to ask ourselves some questions.

  1. Is there an unmet disability-need here? (They could be experiencing all sorts of unmet needs, It may not be necessarily connected to their disability)
  2. If it is connected to their disability, what is the unmet need?
  3. What is the barrier preventing this unmet need being met?

Now let’s apply this to an example.

Ryan has ADHD. Ryan tends to be more distracted, moving around a lot at the end of the day, and is engaging in social behaviours that other students in the class don’t like. He is taking their pencils and erasers and hiding them, and is saying things (teasing/taunting) that evokes a reaction from them that is negative. This is consistent every day.

When the teacher relays this information to the parent, they think about it and later send an email to the school with their thoughts.

The parent first wonders what the disability-related needs could be related to this situation. People with ADHD need more movement, do better with creative hand on tasks, and struggle sitting. It can be physically painful for them to sit. Their bodies will force them to move. People with ADHD do very well on tasks they are interested in and it is extremely difficult to focus on tasks you have no interest in. They also can require more mental stimulation. Kids with ADHD also have higher relationship needs and connecting with their teacher so they can learn will be more important to them.

They think about these disability related needs and wonder how much movement Ryan is getting during the day, and why they are struggling more so in the afternoon. Their curiosity is that they are wondering if Ryan has been sitting to much during the day and is getting restless and bored with too much pen to paper work. Ryan is then doing things that they find are more mentally stimulating and creating drama in the class is more interesting than doing schoolwork.

Typical classrooms don’t fit the needs of a lot of kids with ADHD. The barrier could be a personal physical barrier – that he is forced to sit too long. The next barriers could be informational or communication – he may not understand the assignments or it fit how he processes information. Classroom teacher management could be the barrier – he finds the teacher too strict and after listening to this all day his more anxious and so he is distracting himself with other things.  It could be he is not interested in what he is working on, and his education isn’t hands on enough and too much pen to paperwork. It could be a relational barrier – he isn’t connected to his teacher and thinks his teacher doesn’t like him so he disconnects more at the end of the day wanting to leave and wish he wasn’t there. It could be an attitudinal barrier or teacher philosophy barrier – that they value pen to paper work over other ways of learning. It could be many barriers. It’s hard for us to know what the barriers are because we are not in school. So this is where communicating with our child’s teacher is going to be very important and to bring up the idea of barriers and trying to brainstorm together what the possible barriers could be.

Could creating more scheduled movement breaks during the day, replacing some of the written assignments with more hands on creative projects that are led by him decrease some of the behavoiurs we don’t want to see and improve his focus to help him last all day? Could the teacher making an effort to check-in with him more often during the day help with building the relationship?

We won’t really know what will work or what won’t work until we try it. We know our kids, but we don’t know what they are like in an education setting 5-days a week when we aren’t in the room and they are on their own. The environment they navigate in school to survive the day and home is completely different.

Even being aware of all of our child’s potential disability-related needs will most likely require us to do quite a bit of research and really know and understand our child’s disability. And then we need to consider their unique personality traits and who they are as people. Disabilities don’t present themselves exactly the same in every person. Disability is also fluid and what a person has capacity for on one day wont necessarily be consistent for all days. No wonder everyone is confused and accessibility can be a struggle.

The more we are informed, the more we can effectively advocate for our child.

For more information on types of barriers and accessibility law, please read my blog Barriers, Barriers, Barriers.

Posted on

Co-parenting with the Government

The topic of the right to religious freedom has come up a lot. This is outside of my lane of disability writing, but I am surprised by how many parents contact me about this issue, so here is a blog on it.

I want to offer two cases that I think are very important.

E.T. v. Hamilton-Wenworth District School Board, 2017 ONCA 893

This is a case about a parent who didn’t agree with sex education, etc, being taught in school and felt it was in conflict with their right to religious freedom.

*******

[40]      E.T. cannot, by virtue of his religious beliefs, insist that a non-denominational public school board restructure its inclusive and integrated program, designed to meet its statutory objective of ensuring a respectful and accepting climate for all children, so that he can ensure that his own children are not exposed to any views that he does not accept. Nor do I accept E.T.’s suggestion that the Board could or should ensure that discussion of matters such as sexual orientation and gender identity are discussed purely as matters of fact rather than as matters of “value judgment”. The Board has a statutory mandate to provide an inclusive and tolerant educational environment, one that respects the principles of equality enshrined in s. 15 of the Charter. Equality, inclusivity and acceptance of difference are values, not facts, and it is unrealistic to expect teachers to provide a learning environment that is truly welcoming to all students in a value-free manner.

*******

So what brought on this decision?

Here was the parents request:

*******

[2]         The appellant advised the Board that his religious beliefs require him to shelter his children from what his religion regards as “false teachings”. He provided the Board with a standard form list of topics that included matters such as “moral relativism”, “environmental worship”, “instruction in sex education”, and “discussion or portrayals of homosexual/bisexual conduct and relationships and/or transgenderism as natural, healthy or acceptable”. He asked the Board to provide him with advance notice of any classroom instruction or discussion of these issues so that he could decide whether or not to withdraw his children from those classes or activities.

********

This was the Boards response to his request.

*******

[3]         The Board offered to exempt the appellant’s children from the “Healthy Living” strand in the elementary program, which is offered as a discrete part of the curriculum and involves education on human development and sexual health. However, the Board explained to the appellant that its Equity Policy aims to provide an integrated secular and respectful learning environment that does not discriminate against any child. The Board’s program aims to promote a positive and inclusive environment that accepts all pupils, including those of any sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The Board advised E.T. that, given the integrated nature of its program and the generality of the items on his list, it was neither practical nor possible to comply with his request for prior notification of any time one of the items on his list would arise for discussion in the classroom. The Board also expressed the concern that if E.T.’s children were required to leave the classroom every time one of these topics came up for discussion, the Board’s policy of providing an inclusive and non-discriminatory program would be undermined.

*******

The reality is that when we send our children to a public school, we are co-parenting with the government. And the government has the final say. If you want 100% control over your child’s education, don’t send them to a public school. Education is a government service that is for all children, and the government and society have goals for the next generation. If equality and inclusivity conflict with your religious beliefs, you file a human rights complaint against a public school citing religion as your protected ground, you will probably get it dismissed. Schools are legislated to provide an inclusive and tolerant learning environment.

“The Board has a statutory mandate to provide an inclusive and tolerant educational environment, one that respects the principles of equality enshrined in s. 15 of the Charter.”

I also give you this case

Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002 SCC 86

This is a case about parents’ religious objections to 2SLGBTQIA+ storybooks. The school board’s decision was not to approve books for use in kindergarten and grade 1 for fear of the parents’ religious concerns.

The court overturned the board’s decision because it conflicted with the statutory obligation that public schools have in British Columbia to separate religion from state affairs.  

******

“The B.C. School Act confers on the Minister of Education the power to approve basic educational resource materials to be used in teaching the curriculum in public schools, and confers on school boards the authority to approve supplementary educational resource material, subject to Ministerial direction.  A Kindergarten‑Grade One (“K‑1″) teacher asked the Surrey School Board to approve three books as supplementary learning resources, for use in teaching the family life education curriculum.  The books depicted families in which both parents were either women or men — same‑sex parented families.  The Board passed a resolution declining to approve the books.  The Board’s overarching concern, as found by the trial judge, was that the books would engender controversy in light of some parents’ religious objections to the morality of same‑sex relationships.  The Board also felt that children at the K‑1 level should not be exposed to ideas that might conflict with the beliefs of their parents; that children of this age were too young to learn about same‑sex parented families; and that the material was not necessary to achieve the learning outcomes in the curriculum.”

The Result:

“The Board’s decision is unreasonable because the process through which it was made took the Board outside its mandate under the School Act.  First, the Board violated the principles of secularism and tolerance in s. 76 of the Act.  Instead of proceeding on the basis of respect for all types of families, the Board proceeded on an exclusionary philosophy, acting on the concern of certain parents about the morality of same‑sex relationships, without considering the interest of same‑sex parented families and the children who belong to them in receiving equal recognition and respect in the school system.  Second, the Board departed from its own regulation with respect to how decisions on supplementary resources should be made, which required it to consider the relevance of the proposed material to curriculum objectives and the needs of children of same‑sex parented families.  Third, the Board applied the wrong criteria.  It failed to consider the curriculum’s goal that children at the K‑1 level be able to discuss their family models, and that all children be made aware of the diversity of family models in our society.  Instead, the Board applied a criterion of necessity, which was inconsistent with the function of supplementary resources in enriching children’s experience through the use of extra materials of local relevance.  The Board erred in relying on concerns about cognitive dissonance and age‑appropriateness which were foreclosed by the curriculum in this case.” 

*******

Our society needs to stay the course and fight for an inclusive and equitable society for all people and especially for marginalized groups with deep historical roots in oppression. Public schools are essential in socializing the next generation towards inclusion.

On October 13th 2025 The Tyee posted an article written by Ximena Gonzalez titled: “Inside the Right-Wing Attack on Alberta’s Public Education: MAGA’s Project 2025 has become a blueprint for undermining Canada’s schools in the name of profit and privilege.“

If anyone has come across other cases that they feel are important to this topic, or are newer, I would love it if you could email me and let me know what they are.

kimbpath @ gmail.com

Posted on

Fairness at the BC Human Rights Tribunal

There are a lot of people self-representing themselves in many legal avenues. Small claims courts, family law, and residential tribunals are just to name a few. Most people navigating the human rights tribunal are self-represented as well.

What all these legal avenues have in common is that they are swamped with work, backed up, and everyone in these systems experiences way longer delays than anyone should ever have to experience. Navigating the human rights tribunal system has taught me patience and the art of waiting like no other experience has or would.

Fairness for a self-represented person is very important. We always want to make sure we are experiencing a fair process, especially when we are in an adversarial legal situation against lawyers. Already, it feels unfair. Because it is. So the process becomes extra important. The term you want to research is “procedural fairness”.

Tribunal members, adjudicators and judges are very used to dealing with the self-represented litigant vs. lawyer situations. This happens A LOT! To start out with, between 50-80% of the people are self-representing, depending on the area of law. That is already incredibly high. Then, of the self-representing litigants in this study “89.3% of respondents said that the other side in their case was represented by counsel, while 10.6% percent stated that the other side was also self-representing.” (p. 6) Wow, so most people are representing themselves in legal proceedings and most of the time they are up against lawyers.

There is a lot of case law already on trying to ensure a fair process.

There are cases that will point this out, and I encourage you to earmark these and use them just in case you feel you need them. There are lots on the procedural fairness page on the BC HRT below.

Here is one example of the HRT bending to ensure fairness:

Teacher v. School District and others, 2025 BCHRT 179

[3]               The Teacher provided further evidence and argument in her Form 5 – Time Limit Reply, which I decided to consider because she is self-represented and should be given some latitude in raising new allegations and arguments in reply. In fairness to the Respondents, I considered their further submissions responding to the Teacher’s reply. Finally, I considered the Teacher’s reply to the Respondent’s further submissions as a matter of fairness.

Here is another case regarding making submissions

Taylor v Mallany, 2019 NLCA 25

[24]      At paragraph 53 of the decision, Green J.A. notes that the Principles impose responsibility on judges, court officials, and members to the Bar to “ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment by the court” which includes “opportunities for all persons to understand and meaningfully present their case.” And further at paragraph 54, he suggests that the Principles should be treated as having some legal effect:

The Right to Make Submissions

[26]      A fundamental element of the right to be heard is the right of a party to present their case to the decision-maker.

Procedural Fairness at the HRT

Here is the page on procedural fairness for the BC Human Rights Tribunal. I encourage you to read this if you are going to be navigating the process.

Here are some things that I have learned:

  1. If you are having meetings, you can ask for an agenda to be created so that you know what to expect and can do some research beforehand to prepare for the meeting
  2. ALWAYS ask questions. If you think something is fishy, ask! You have a right to ask questions.
  3. Push the line. If you think something isn’t fair, say so. People can’t read your mind and you are the one with all of the information about your situation. These systems aren’t designed for anyone in particular, so if your situation doesn’t fit the mold, speak up. Always ask for something that you want. If they say no, then you at least got your answer. Don’t assume the answer will be no.
  4. Lawyers aren’t allowed to take advantage of you becuase you are self-representing, so if you they are messing with you, you can call them on it by filing an improper conduct complaint with the HRT or file a complaint with the law society.

Here are some of my tips for navigating the HRT.

The tribunal members have their hands tied in many ways, but I can tell you, I have noticed when they are still able to stay in their lane, uphold case law, they will be flexible to ensure fairness to both sides. Which I have appreciated.

The HRT is a legal process. It’s a legal test. Doesn’t mean your experience didn’t happen.

Like any self-representing person, reading case law is a great place to learn about law. Here are the instructions to navigate Canlii. There are lots of great YouTube videos for people self-representing.

And for those who are interested, here is a fascinating report on self-represented litigants in Canada.

Posted on

Wait Time for External Complaint Systems

Filing external complaints can take a long time BUT there are a few options to help speed things up.

There are a lot of people filing complaints. Some of them are about being overcharged on bills from the government, to city bylaws, to very serious, immediate risks related to shelter. There are a large variety of types of complaints. For complaints that involve children who are currently experiencing harm, there are ways to speed up the process.

Ombudsperson BC

So how long does it take? According to their annual report 2023-2024 p. 99

53% of the files were closed within 30-90 days.

98% of the files were closed within one year.

What many people don’t know about is the early resolution option. They have an early resolution team. “Early Resolution team can quickly resolve
a complaint by doing an expedited investigation of the public body the complaint is about.” (p. 19) If you are currently dealing with issues, like the school is ignoring you, then this can be a quick intervention to get the conversation flowing again.

I highly encourage you to ask if this is an option. Especially if your issue is time-sensitive.

Teachers Regulation Branch

This process is currently at 10-12 months for everything to be completed. 3-5 days for your complaint to be accepted and sent out to the educator.

If you have an urgent physical or psychological safety concern about an education staff person, you will get a faster response from the Superintendent than you will through the TRB branch.

BC Human Rights Tribunal

Acceptance of complaints is currently at 12-18 months. On their automatic email response, they state:

“The tribunal is completing its review of complaints filed in 2023. We expect to begin reviewing cases filed in 2024 in the fall of 2025”

Now, before you fall off your seat, let me explain the fast-tracking option.

You can apply to fast-track your complaint if it’s urgent. An example listed on the BCHRT website fast-tracking page is this:

“The complaint is about a child’s education. The child will not graduate this year, without a fast solution.”

So it needs to be something that your child is experiencing harm with NOW. Like exclusion, or not getting their accommodations now. If you pulled your child and they are at a different school and you just filed about discrimination they experienced but are no longer experiencing, unfortunately, you will need to go through the long wait.

Fast-tracking is about speeding up the process at any time during your complaint. So you could file the fast-tracking application when you file your human rights complaint, or if you are in the process and needs become urgent, you can still file a fast-tracking application at any time.

When you file a fast-tracking application, and it gets accepted as that, they aren’t kidding. Things move fast. It’s days or a couple of weeks till you will find out.

Here is the page about fast-tracking. You will need to read this page to know how you will need to make your argument. You will be filing out a general application form. On the home page, they have the FORMS tab and you will be filing out the 7.1 general application form. Fast-tracking is on the list that you tick off.

I encourage people to consider the fast-tracking option. The worst thing will be you will be told no. But you may be surprised by how fast and willing they are to accept your application when it comes to children and education.

OIPC

It will be about 3-5 months before you are connected to an investigator. It can take about a month to find out if your complaint has been accepted. If your case goes to an adjudicator, it can take about a year from the time you are told it is moving onto the next step. Though for your file to reach an inquiry, it’s not too common.

There isn’t a fast-tracking option that I am aware of, but if you urgently need this information, always ask.

Section 11 Appeal

This is an internal complaint system, as you are appealing a decision made by the district to the Board of Education. But this process has a firm timeline attached to it.

From the School Act

11 (7)A board must

(a)make a decision under this section within 45 days of the date on which the board receives the appeal, and

(b)promptly report that decision to the person making the appeal.

** Always Ask

The external complaints systems are not always processing urgent complaints, or complaints for children or vulnerable people. One complaint I read about was about someone’s neighbour doing something they didn’t like.

Complaints that involve children in education, especially if the harm is continuing, require a faster reaction. Always ask. Always express the urgency of what you are dealing with. Ombudsperson and the BC Human Rights Tribunal both have processes to prioritize more urgent requests.

I find the wait time for these processes are currently working at to be a barrier in itself. Access delayed is access denied. The wait times can be daunting for some people. The BC HRT is currently working on how to speed up their process, so hopefully, we will see some movement.

If your issue is time sensitive, when you file your complaint with any of these complaint systems, highlight that it is time sensitive and ask them if there are any ways to speed up the process.

Posted on

Amending (Improving) a Complaint

I wrote my second human rights complaint at 4 am after very little sleep, was raging mad and didn’t look at it again until document disclosure time. Then I realized, opps! I need to amend my complaint. I don’t recommend you write your complaints at 4am. Lesson learned. Scream into a pillow and let it sit for a bit.

This is the second time I have amended my original complaint. After consulting with a lawyer at BC Human Rights Clinic, for the first human rights complaint I filed, I realized that details should be added, and so I amended my complaint to add “particulars” and not widen the scope (how big) the complaint was. It was easily accepted.

With my second human rights complaint, I was widening the scope, so it involved a formal application process, and the respondents could respond.

People are often afraid of missing something when they write their complaints, and I highly suggest you write a rough draft and make an appointment with the BC Human Rights Clinic or Disability Alliance. They are booking their appointments 2-3 weeks in advance. Well worth the wait. So if you are impulsive like me, sit on your hands and don’t push the send button quite yet until you get an appointment. But even if you do, it’s not the end; you can always apply to amend the complaint later.

If you do ever want to amend your complaint, another good-to-know is how the tribunal views self-represented people.

Many different types of vulnerable people file complaints, ranging from all sorts of situations. I think the public would be surprised to learn that many people are filing complaints and self-representing themselves against the government from prison, with no access to the internet and limited access to legal research tools.

This case isn’t an education case, but even non-education cases have jewels of information for us to learn from.

This case, by the way, is an incredibly important decision and has a lot of content on the impacts of colonialism. For parents filing complaints on behalf of their kids, this is the section that is good to know. You can use this case and quote these paragraphs in your amendment.

Ms. B v. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Criminal Records Review Program), 2025 BCHRT 185

********

[116]       I acknowledge the Ministry’s argument that Ms. B gave limited information in her complaint about her Indigenous identity. Her complaint is one that could be described as arriving at the Tribunal’s gate “imperfectly brought,” as discussed by the BC Supreme Court in Lord:

“Within the human rights process, applicants are vulnerable when filing a complaint about a human rights violation which they believe has occurred. They may not know how to file their complaint in such a way that it will be heard, or in what form evidence is received, believed, or weighed by the Tribunal. Self-represented litigants … face significant barriers in bringing a claim of discrimination: para. 36.”

[117]       In Lord, the Court cautioned against winnowing out complaints that are imperfectly brought, and may require more work to comprehend, but likely contain allegations of merit:para. 38. I find that caution applicable here.

[118]       Ms. B filed her complaint as a self-represented party. The evidence before me points to her vulnerability as a person trying to reintegrate into society, while addressing the impacts of spending much of her life in prison, including long periods in solitary confinement. In her interview with the Criminal Records Review Program Investigator, Ms. B said: “I don’t even know how to hug after so many years in isolation”: Deroche Affidavit, Exhibit A, p. 20.

[119]       She filed her complaint at a time when she was adhering to parole conditions, had little to no income, and was focused on securing employment to support herself. I take from these circumstances that Ms. B faced barriers in filing her complaint at a time when she was self-represented and especially vulnerable. She was vulnerable as a low-income parolee trying to find her footing in society after so many years in prison. As an Indigenous woman, she is a member of a group who experiences persistent patterns of inequality and discrimination. She is vulnerable in the sense that she is vulnerable to those larger forces.

[120]       Within this context, Ms. B’s complaint could be said to be imperfect. She took up only three pages answering the relevant questions in the complaint form in a succinct manner……

*********

Just some added info: You have 5 pages to add to your complaint in addition to the form.

If you are a parent who is self-representing, it may be helpful to add some social context to your application to amend the complaint and explain why at the time of writing the complaint, it came out in the form that it did. If you weren’t able to have a lawyer review it, you can explain why not.

Social context items can be your income, protected characteristics, employment, family status responsibilities, education level, and other issues that create barriers to your ability to write a well-written complaint without access to legal support.

** When you make applications, not all decisions become public. Only certain ones that advance The Code, or are important for the public to be aware of will be posted.

Here are some cases that involve amending a complaint.

Warford v. Board of Education of School District No. 41 (Burnaby), 2024 BCHRT 322

Pausch v. School District No. 34 and others, 2008 BCHRT 154

Posted on

Getting ready for IEP Season – Legally

Here is a list of relevant human rights decisions that can assist you in your advocacy at IEP time.

Among decisions from hearings are decisions to not dismiss complaints and have them proceed, which are also relevant. It shows what will be considered a human rights complaint and gives you an idea of what your advocacy options are.

Self-Advocacy

A topic that often comes up in IEP meetings is self-advocacy. What does the Human Rights case law say about advocacy for kids with a disability?

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

[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.

******

  • Age specific
  • Ability specific
  • Burden is not on the child to identify and bring forward the necessary facts for their accommodation

Self-advocacy is an important skill for children to develop, but we need to be realistic about the environment they are in. I give you this blog: Self-Advocacy and Victim Blaming in Education

Denied an EA?

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

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

*******

  • We know from this that if you feel your child is not being properly accommodated for their disability-related needs by not having access to an Education Assistant, it may be possible that your human rights complaint will be accepted by the tribunal.
  • You can use this case in your advocacy
  • The school district would have to be able to justify its decision not to provide your child access to an EA and that they were still reasonably accommodating your child. Documenting your child struggling and not equitably accessing their education is key. Provide this evidence to the district with this case.

Professional Recommendations

[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.

*******

  • The school is taking a risk of you filing a human rights complaint and having it accepted if they do not consider the professional recommendations that you are providing them.

Not Following the IEP

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

[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.

********

To read about the legal effect and function of an IEP please read this blog, IEP – They aren’t just words on a Page

Meaningful Inquiry

The all-important duty to consult is very applicable to IEP meetings.

Read about the Duty to Consult, which is protected by the Human Rights case law. You are protected and backed up by multiple forms of written authority.

They Must Not Give Up

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

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

*******

  • By developing an IEP, reviewing progress and adapting their approach, they can justify reasonable accommodations.
  • So you can ask them to give you examples of this being done.
  • Blog on this case.

Posted on

The Damage Period

Anytime someone is being sued or has a human rights complaint against them, they are always looking to minimize the damage period. They don’t want to pay for your harm for 2 years, when they can only be legally responsible for 6 months.

Common sense, reality and law don’t always match up. These are legal tests. Law tries to put a box around a human experience.

Depending on the legal issue, there are different ways to minimize the damage period.

I took a defamation workshop (notes here), and I found it to be very interesting. I learned about how, if/when, and how you apologize can impact how much you could potentially be on the hook for paying them. For example, let’s say you go on social media and say some horrible shit about someone. You accuse them of being involved in criminal activity, etc. blah blah blah. A week later, you apologize genuinely, take it all back, and try to repair their reputation. You explain you were angry, you made it all up, etc. The apology acts as a time stamp. It legally stops the clock. Your damage period may only be 7 days. But if you apologize after 2 months and the damage has already been done….they have lost business because of what you have said about them. Well, now your costs are going to be much higher.

This is an important concept in human rights complaints for schools, because I have noticed they are always trying to limit their damage period.

This can be good for us.

If they know you have a human rights complaint submitted, they are going to want to “fix it”. Not because they are emotionally motivated, but more financially motivated to do it. They know they are now going to have to justify their actions and provide evidence of accommodation, potentially, to a tribunal. They are going to want to shrink their damage period by providing your child with accommodations. The more concerned they are about you taking your case to a hearing, the more of a commitment to undoing the harm you are going to get.

This is one of the reasons telling them you have filed a human rights complaint before you find out if it’s been accepted or not can be a form of advocacy for your child.

Some people may disagree with me, but in my experience, a human rights complaint offered my child a level of protection. They got the support they needed, and they were protected by retaliation protections in The Code. Depends on what you are dealing with; fast tracking may make the most sense. Sometimes, having a human rights complaint hang over the district, lasting for years, may be the exact thing that you need to keep your kid safe.

If you don’t notice any changes within the next few months after letting the district know you have filed a complaint, they may genuinely feel that they are accommodating your child up to the point of undue hardship and their decisions are justifiable. Doesn’t mean that they are correct.

Lawyers and districts are always thinking of how to reduce their costs, and they will assess how “cost-risky” you are. They have a lot of parents threatening all sorts of things at them. Reality is, not many parents follow through. So if you are a parent who actually files external complaints, you are now sticking out from the crowd.

My suggestion to anyone is to be thoughtful when filing complaints. Don’t rush into it. Be aware of time limits. With the BC HRT and filing a human rights complaint, you have a year. These can be part of your toolbox. For example, if you are considering filing a Teacher’s Regulation Branch, the Ministry wants you to speak with the superintendent first. That can be useful. You may not even need to file the complaint. Start by using human rights language in your advocacy emails and escalate as needed.

I had no idea how much strategizing was involved in advocacy when I first started out. I have learned A LOT.

Your pen can be your sword.

Posted on

The Use of Delay

One of the most powerful oppression tools that people use to make someone go away is DELAY.

Creating delay, ongoing, constantly extending, makes people give up like nothing else because they start to feel hopeless that anything will ever be resolved.

So…..They go away feeling tired and defeated.

Delay is like a magic wand. It sucks the life out of people. And they KNOW it.

Even outside of education and other various government systems that are dealing with people’s complaints, they systematically and strategically delay people. They make “mistakes” that extend time. Things get lost or misplaced. Filed incorrectly. People are “confused” and use that as a delay tactic. Technology problems. It is incredible how much this is used. All Intention. I have seen forms being intentionally altered to re-route a complaint to an inappropriate department. Delays work especially well for them on the most vulnerable people. Many, many times, these “mistakes” are not innocent. But most of the time, it’s so difficult to prove intent, which makes it such a powerful strategy.

Delay works like magic for them.

If you are in a position of advocacy, get ready. You will 100% be dealing with this.

You will see a variety of delay tactics. Even ones that seem positive, they can turn them into delays. The duty to consult can be used as a delay tactic, and it takes friggen forever to organize the consultation, and it just goes on and on. Multiple issues with the consultation process just keep happening. An investigation can be a delay tactic. Extending the investigation for a variety of reasons that make it look like they are doing a good job. Dealy. Waiting for you to lose interest in the outcome. It appears that things are being done.

On a systemic level, not funding systems to manage the high volume leads to delay. People will self-select themselves out of systems, wondering if their complaint is worth it or not. It alters the data and shows a decreased need.

When you are advocating, they will not respond to emails. When they do, they will tell you that they will respond next week, and then don’t. They will ask for extensions due to schedule conflicts.

The skill in the delay tactic is to make it look reasonable. How can you complain? If you do, you are the one who looks unreasonable.

Keep your eye out for delay tactics. Keep a log. Dates. What they did. Being able to connect the dots and pull everything together may be very useful one day.

So how do we combat delay? We need to be pleasantly persistent.

Sometimes you just have to ride the wave. Just be aware of what is happening. Document. You’ll learn patience like no other.

But know this. They are delaying things for a reason. The delay has a purpose. You have hit a nerve. You are onto something. They are nervous.

To Do:

  1. GO UP THE CHAIN: When you email them, give them a timeline. If you don’t get a response, go up the chain and include other people or organizations. You literally need to be politely up their butt. They need to see you and hear you. The most stubborn and patient people will most likely be successful in dealing with delay strategies.

Remember: Access delayed is access denied.

Not making a decision is still making a decision.

Being ignored is communication. Silence can be a form of violence.

If you were to give the system a human form, it would be a narcissistic person using coercive control tactics on you.

Here is a page on how to deal when schools are ignoring you.

2. FILE COMPLAINTS. A Section 11 complaint can help speed up the process, as there is a 45 day time limit. External complaints can be a way to hold them accountable. But be prepared, external complaint systems are long. There are ways to fast-track your complaint. But filing a complaint or letting them know that you will be doing so can speed up their sense of urgency. You may need to give them a reason for them want to resolve this ASAP.

3. CREATE & COMMUNICATE EVIDENCE. Document the harm and communicate the harm to the school. It will put add pressure. Especially if they think a human rights complaint could be coming down the line. They will want to limit their damage period.

4. BRING SUPPORT. By bringing in an education support person to witness all the goings-on and them knowing an extra set of eyes on them can help reduce the delay tactics. Also hiring a lawyer has kicked a district into response mode. You don’t need to hire a lawyer thought, an extra set of eyes can do the trick. Here is my education advocacy help directory.

“If you think you are too small to make a difference, you haven’t spent the night with a mosquito.” African proverb quoted by the Dalai Lama

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” – Alice Walker

Posted on

District discretion – outside recommendations – denial reasonable

This case is from Manitoba. Cases in other provinces aren’t binding, but still influential and are used nationally in human rights complaints across Canada. We absolutely need to be aware of them.

This is a case to be known.

This parent lost her human rights complaint and filed a judicial review. She lost that as well and has had to pay costs. Paying costs is not something that you risk when filing a human rights complaint, but something you do risk when you file a judicial review. This is thousands of dollars, possibly $20,000 in BC. (Please consult with a lawyer if you are filing a judicial review.)

Wells v. Manitoba (Human Rights Commission) et al., 2025 MBKB 86

[1]         Maxine Wells (Ms. Wells or the applicant) is a tireless advocate for her son who had learning disability challenges as a student in the Border Land School Division (the Division).  Ms. Wells was in regular contact with his teachers, school administration and Division personnel[1] regarding his learning challenges and how they should be addressed.  Often, there were disagreements about his needs and how they should be addressed.  Several times, Ms. Wells retained independent specialists to assess her son’s learning disabilities and provide recommendations on how to accommodate those learning disabilities in the school setting.  Ms. Wells says that the Division was often dismissive of the recommendations of these specialists.  This became increasingly frustrating for her as she wanted to ensure her son had the best possible outcome in an education framework that did not, from her perspective, appear to be giving him the opportunity to succeed.  She says that ultimately, her son did not achieve the level of learning he could have had the Division followed the recommendations of the specialists as she urged them to do.

[8]         The thrust of Ms. Wells’ application is that she disagrees with the Division’s assessments of her son’s needs and the accommodation measures implemented which, in her opinion, were often not aligned with those of outside clinicians.  More specifically, she submitted that:

  • the Division did not accept assessments provided by experts;

    (etc.)

**********

The conclusion is interesting as the tribunal saw the teachers as the experts to dismiss the outside experts. I think everything in the paragraph below is interesting. This is how the tribunal views the education staff and the power they support.

We have a case in BC where a parent’s human rights complaint continued partly because outside recommendations were not considered. However, here is a tribunal hearing decision which is different than the legal test for a dismissal.

*********

[29]      After considering all the evidence in relation to the Complaint, the Investigator concluded that the Board offered reasonable accommodation:

… the evidentiary record suggests that the school provided him with extensive supports, adaptations and programming based on the medical documentation it received, and its own observations of [her] son.  The evidence shows that the school often already had supports in place that met or addressed some recommendations in new reports it received.  While it may not have been able to implement every individual recommendation immediately or at all time, the school made a concerted effort to update and follow the son’s educational plan as per the extensive and changing recommendation made by numerous different clinicians and healthcare professionals through the son’s schooling.  The school must be given some discretion with respect to the specific programming and supports it provided to its students based on medical documentation and ongoing assessments.  As subject matter experts in delivering education, it appears that the school would be in the best position to determine how to provide academic accommodation to students in accordance with its assessments and available medical documentations.

**********

This is where a lot of parents can get confused about the IEP process. The schools have a duty to meaningfully consult with you. But the FINAL decision always rests with the school. Not you. You are not an equal partner. There doesn’t need to be a consensus. They don’t need you to agree.

They need to be able to justify their decision-making and provide with evidence that they are providing “reasonable accommodations” up to the point of undue hardship.

Recommendations from professionals are just that, recommendations. This tribunal has asserted that it’s up to the teachers (the district) which recommendations to implement and when. They still need to be able to justify it as reasonable. As removing a barrier and providing “a ramp”, a reasonable ramp. And they will need to provide EVIDENCE to the tribunal that they have done this.

The school districts being aware that they need to provide evidence of reasonable accommodations is why they are aware and concerned about their damage period, when they find out you have filed or are considering filing a complaint.

An important part of the duty to accommodate process isn’t just the discrimination test. The other side of the coin is the reasonable justification test.

The tribunal has repeatedly put the professional responsibility in the hands of education staff to be the ones to figure out how to remove the barriers for disabled students so their education is accessible. Ok then, so do it.

Always remember, they have the responsibility of investigating and figuring out what the barriers are and creating a plan to remove them. Meaningful inquiry.

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

*******

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

[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 am so thankful for the transparency of these cases being public for us to all learn from and be aware, so we can be knowledgeable advocates.

As always, I recommend you read the case in full.

Posted on

Settlements

At any time, a settlement can occur during the human rights process. The BC HRT website also states that you can request a mediation meeting at any time.

Some people file a human rights complaint and then, soon after, send a demand letter. Sometimes, if you tell the school that you filed a human rights complaint, they try and make things right. They offer support in exchange for a withdrawal. Which, hey, if your kid gets what they need, success! If the supports leave in the future, file another complaint. Ride it out. Make the complaint last, as they may provide support to limit their damage period. They know they will have to be prepared to provide evidence that they are providing reasonable accommodations.

At any time, you can send a settlement offer through email, titled “Without prejudice” at the top. Doesn’t matter where you are in the process. You can search on the internet for examples of settlement offers, but really, it doesn’t need to be anything fancy. There are many pages on the BC Human Rights Tribunal Website to read about settlement.

At the beginning of your complaint process, once it’s been accepted, the tribunal will automatically set up a mediation meeting with a mediator. If both parties have legal representation, they are encouraged to do it on their own. But mediation meetings do sometimes fail, and settlement can still occur after.

A lot of settlements happen a couple of weeks before a hearing. This is quite typical, and if you follow hearings on the HRT website, a lot of them drop off before the actual hearing date. At the last case conference before the hearing, the tribunal will encourage both parties to try again with a mediator and organize the mediation meeting.

Some people settle days before a hearing. Settlement can even occur during a hearing. Quite a sizeable chunk of people settle after a hearing and everyone’s cards have been shown.

At some point during the process, parents are sometimes approached by the respondents and asked, what do you feel your child needs in order to be successful? They look at offering them another opportunity to come back to school with more support. This may be appealing to you and mitigate the harm your child has already experienced.

If you are fighting for a monetary settlement amount, the amount you are fighting for is for your kid. This is money that will be held in trust until they are 19. You and/or they can access this money for them. For speech therapy, or counselling, etc. If they want something, and if you agree, they can request portions of it for something they want/need. If you can get your kid back into school with the support they need to be successful, this is also a benefit to them. Getting them the support they need can be way more valuable than any dollar amount you could end up with for them.

I just encourage parents to be open to various ways of obtaining a benefit for their child and other children. Policies can come out of settlements, changes in practice, etc. For most parents, the whole point of filing a human rights complaint is for their child. You can be creative. BUT, I highly suggest you consider getting something of a monetary amount. Even a couple of thousand dollars can go towards counselling, which may be very helpful. Some of the creative resolutions won’t be held up by a court if they don’t fulfill their commitment, but a monetary amount will be.

There have been cases where they have tried to wiggle out of the creative mediation agreements, or given the bare minimum, but still legally fit the terms of the agreement. That’s why I say, if you get at least some monetary amount, you have something. Then you can always file another complaint if the issue is persistent.

If you want a hearing instead of a settlement, I get it. I certainly won’t be the person to try and talk you out of it.

As always, I encourage you to seek legal advice when going through a settlement and having a lawyer review your settlement agreement.