Tag: #BCHRT

Posted on

Disability – Related Adverse Impact (Dismissal Application)

School Employee Files Human Rights Complaint

This is an employment case, and the employee is in the school setting. I have only ever written on two other staff employee cases. I don’t focus on this at all, but every once in a while, a case will come along that is very helpful for others to know about. The legal test for employment and human rights can be very specific.

Here are the two other cases:

School Employee
Education Assistant – Employment Human Rights Complaint
A HR Decision for School Employees

This case will now be added in that section as the third one.

Dismissal Application – School Employee

This is a short dismissal application decision. It’s a pretty simple one, and for that reason, this is a great one to highlight some key points.

Misiak v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey), 2026 BCHRT 98

[17]           At a hearing, Mr. Misiak would have to establish that he has a disability, that the District treated him adversely, and that the adverse treatment was connected to his physical disability: Moore v. BC (Education),  2012 SCC 61at para. 33. Mr. Misiak is not required to prove the complaint at this time but need only point to some evidence capable of taking the complaint “out of the realm of conjecture”: Berezoutskaiaat para. 24. The threshold to move the complaint forward to a hearing is low.

[18]           The District says there is no evidence that Mr. Misiak has suffered a disability related adverse impact and his compliant has not been taken out of the realm of conjecture. I agree.

*******

He had an injury to his elbow from 2018 that limited what he could do with his left arm.

********

[20]           The materials show WorkSafeBC advised that Mr. Misiak was limited in performing repetitive motion with his left arm, and forceful or sustained gripping with his left hand. The undisputed evidence of the District is that Mr. Misiak was placed in a job that does not require repetitive motions with his left arm or any forceful or sustained gripping. Mr. Misiak has not identified any accommodation that was recommended by WorkSafeBC, or that he requested, that was not implemented.

[19]           ……..The District provided detailed evidence of the recommendations made by WorkSafeBC and how they implemented each recommendation. While Mr. Misiak says in his response that his WorkSafeBC claim was denied and he was not accommodated, the evidence before me shows the District implemented all of the recommendations made by WorkSafeBC.

[22]           Mr. Misiak’s submissions are general complaints about the conduct of members of the health and safety committee at meetings, and the quality of air filters in schools. It is unclear on the materials what equipment Mr. Misiak is saying he had to supply for himself. He says the District took a long time to purchase and install new drill presses for the school’s woodworking program but has not pointed to how this is related to any physical disability he has. Similarly, Mr. Misiak alleges someone stood in front of him during a health and safety meeting and he was unable to respond to questions. Mr. Misiak has not provided any information that links his experience at a meeting to any disability. The District points out that there is no evidence to support Mr. Misiak’s allegation that he was not paid for his work.

*******

Four points to highlight

* The test to move a complaint past the dismissal stage is LOW….but you still have requirements you must meet.

** You will need to be able to identify your disability-related adverse impact. Not just any adverse impact. It has to pass the discrimination test.

*** You need to point to some kind of evidence that supports what you are claiming.

**** You can have unfair, horrible stuff happen to you, but it doesn’t mean that it is discrimination. There is not going to be legal remedies for all of the negative experiences you have in your life, or for all of the horrible things that people are going to do to you.

You will save yourself a lot of unnecessary pain and deprive the lawyers of their billable hours by understanding what complaint systems can create change and what those systems need from you in order to be successful. There are limitations in all of them, and they are all connected to different legislation. There are also complaint avenues or resolution avenues as an employee that I do not mention in this blog or on my website, as I primarily focus on parents advocating on behalf of their children. Information on complaint system options.

Parents & caregivers, we too have to focus on our kids’ disability-related needs, and how the harm they experience is connected to those needs, to be able to pass the discrimination test. We too, have an education case from the tribunal that has been very clear that not all negative experiences are discrimination.

Discrimination Test

3 questions.

  1. Does your child have a disability?
  2. Did they experience harm?
  3. Was the harm connected to their disability?
    .

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

[110] ….I accept that these incidents which X relayed to Y were upsetting to X. I appreciate that the interactions may have fed into X’s general feelings of unease at school, but the fact alone that these events may have happened is not enough, in itself, to establish that X’s disability factored into them. Not all negative experiences are discrimination. Even accepting that these incidents occurred, I did not hear evidence that could establish, on a balance of probabilities, that X’s disability was a factor in the conduct of the adults involved in these interactions.

Posted on

Accountability in Education – Government Action Needed

Accountability is extremely important in education. People who are the decision makers in children’s education have a lot of power. Their decisions have a direct impact on children’s development, learning, and mental health. Make the wrong decision, and it could send a child on the trajectory of self-harm, suicide, lifelong struggles with unemployment, mental health issues and bouncing around in the prison system. Parents aren’t fighting for preferential treatment; we are fighting for our kids’ chance at a life.

Here was the scariest thought that I had in my head. I couldn’t let go of what happened to my child without the district admitting their staff made huge mistakes. Because it they weren’t even aware or had the will to acknowledge the harm they caused, they would just repeat it. If you are doing everything to shorten our conversations, delay communicating with me, we aren’t getting off on the right foot.

The idea of them just getting to push this under a rug and carry on in their lives as if this never happened was sickening.

Without accountability, they think they are untouchable. They don’t need to answer to anyone. They can just make whatever decisions they want.

That is terrifying to me.

Especially when we are talking about children who have no control over their own lives and kids who just want to have their parents to love them and be liked by others. Just wanting to be included. Kids don’t have control over anything when they are in school. You don’t fall in line, the feedback is fierce. Charts on walls with your name on it – public shaming is their specialty. Time outside revoked. Sorry, no fresh air for you today. Even adults who are incarcerated should get “yard time” on a daily basis.

Accountability in education is extremely important. External complaints are the outside eyes that they need to know, are there. Outside the perimeter. Can be called on at a moment’s notice. Parents get a whiff of denial, minimizing, or gaslighting. We need backup.

Everyone wants accountability because the fear is that the untouchable school admin will keep doing this to other people. More kids will be harmed.

Can you imagine if the Human Rights Code were actually removed?

That could have happened.

It would be a free-for-all. Why? The Human Rights Code doesn’t have value without a way for us to enforce it. THAT is the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The process that we navigate has as much value as the Code itself. If the process is sick or unwell, so is The Code.

Think about that.

Is the BC Human Rights Tribunal process healthy? Or is it sick? And what does that mean for the Power of the Human Rights Code? How long are the delays for a complaint to be accepted? Access delayed is access denied.

Right now, it’s 18 months to 2 years.

For all of the politicians who believe in the importance of the Human Rights Code, you need to put the same importance of that into the BC Human Rights Tribunal, which is incredibly understaffed and overwhelmed with complaints.

We need the government to not just use its words, but show us with action, that they truly believe in the importance of the Human Rights Code.

The Human Rights Code and BC Human Rights Tribunal are intertwined.

If you care about the Human Rights Code, then you must also care about the process of accessing those rights through the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

Posted on

“We Deny Each and Every Allegation”

When you file a human rights complaint, and if it gets accepted, you will receive an email notifying you that your complaint is proceeding.

The school will get the email as well. This is the first time they will be contacted by the BC Human Rights Tribunal. They will have an opportunity to submit a “response” a few weeks later.

It will be multiple pages long, and they will be defending themselves. Listing all the reasons that your complaint is not true, or if it is true, their decision-making is justified.

Just a heads up. It is very difficult to read.

If you need to move heavy furniture, read this right before you have to do so, and you’ll be done in a jiffy.

Some of it will be downright ridiculous to you.

At some point early on in the response, you will see the sentence “We deny each and every allegation”.

I read that sentence, and I swear, something snapped and changed in me forever.

I didn’t know this at the time, but this gets sent to every single parent.

I have seen a lot of documents from parents across this country, and this type of sentence is in every single one. Even when they know they are guilty, it doesn’t matter. I would be shocked if this sentence didn’t show up in your response.

Now. I have some thoughts on this.

I am not sure how this sentence started or who thought this would be a good idea to send to people a long time ago, but sending this to an already irate parent is not the most intelligent thing to do. In fact, you are shooting yourself in the foot as far as I am concerned.

I can tell you that after my eyeballs reached the end of this sentence, I had decided that I was taking my case to a hearing. And, I stuck to it. If I ever needed to refill my gas tank, I just re-read this one line. I was refuelled and back in action.

What I read from that sentence was this:

“Dear Kim. You have been cordially invited to attend a hearing. We do hope you will attend. We look forward to the duel.”

And my response was

“Sounds splashing. I shall be there!”

If you want to pick a fight with a mama bear, please do send this to them. I wish you good luck. The blessings will rain down upon you.

For the parents reading this shit, just know, they have to write something. They certainly are not going to send a response that says…. “ummm yup, guilty, we actually did everything they said. We thought we would get away with it…. but gosh… I guess not. Guilty!”

They will take slices of “truth” and state them as they are the most relevant important facts known to humankind. Just because they are writing stuff down doesn’t mean it is true, doesn’t mean they have evidence to back up what they are saying and doesn’t mean their arguments are strong. They could be very legally weak. For example, “XXXXX passed the class.” Meanwhile, we all know it’s because you hired a tutor. You get the idea. Or “XXXXX never asked for ________.” Meanwhile, we know that they never asked for anything because they were terrified.

But that’s what they get paid the big bucks for. (Insert eye roll)

We run on anger.

Thanks for pissing me off. xoxo. That was an excellent strategy. Cheers!

I now read that sentence and crack up. I need it on a t-shirt. It’s incredible how different I feel about these things as I look back in time, years later. Lots of things are shifting as time moves along.

So, if it propels you forward, then awesome. Read it hundreds of times.

If it’s anxiety-producing, every single person gets it. It’s not personal. It’s just one of their standard, boring, meaningless sentences. Them denying things…. heavens to Betsy. Shocking. They just plunk it in.

Posted on

Neufeld Litigation History

Some people say that one person can’t make a difference. Well, this is an example of how untrue that statement is. One person can make a difference. This one person is so discriminatory, hateful and abusive towards a specific community of beautiful people that he has created the most glorious legal decisions that will help pave the way for the equity, free speech in the right for advocacy and the respect that the 2SLGBTQ+ community deserve.

We can’t forget about his famous Supreme Court of Canada and the decision that allows marginalized communities to stand up for themselves in the name of advocacy without facing defamation lawsuits.

It takes very brave people to stand up and fight. The famous quote “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. Well. Everyone decided to do something. And having the perseverance, and determination to willingly go into lengthy litigation battles is never easy.

However, clearly, we have good people in this world who will not stand around and allow this type of behavior to be acceptable. And because of that, we have now this incredible history that is already been cited in hundreds of other legal cases. The gift that keeps giving.

Supreme Court of Canada

Hansman v. Neufeld, 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2023] 1 SCR 519

Glen Hansman v. Barry Neufeld, 2022 CanLII 693 (SCC)

Supreme Court of Canada


British Columbia Teachers’ Association v Neufeld, 2023 BCSC 1460

Hansman

Neufeld v. Hansman, 2021 BCCA 222

Neufeld v Hansman, 2019 BCSC 2028

Lang

Lang v Neufeld, 2022 BCSC 693


Lang v Neufeld, 2021 BCSC 1468


Lang v Neufeld, 2022 BCSC 130

Bondar

Bondar v Neufeld, 2024 BCSC 594


Neufeld v. Bondar, 2025 BCCA 51


Bondar v Neufeld, 2023 BCSC 2496

BC Human Rights Tribunal

Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 11), 2026 BCHRT 50 – Costs

Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 10), 2026 BCHRT 49 – Final Decision


Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No.9), 2025 BCHRT 310


Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 8), 2025 BCHRT 64


Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 7), 2025 BCHRT 34


Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 6), 2024 BCHRT 337


Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 5), 2024 BCHRT 332


Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 4), 2024 BCHRT 284

Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No.3), 2024 BCHRT 232


Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 180


Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld, 2021 BCHRT 6

Payments – From Judgements

BC HRT (Decision 11) – $10,000

BH HRT (Decision 10) – $442.00 + $750,000 + interest

Cain Bondar – $35,000 + $10,000

Total = $805,422.00

Media

Commissioner welcomes decision protecting LGBTQ people from hate speech

$750,000: B.C. Human Rights Tribunal orders payout in ruling against former school trustee

Former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld ordered to pay $750K for violating Human Rights Code

Former B.C. school trustee ordered to pay $750K in discrimination, hate speech complaint

BCTF celebrates huge win for trans rights and school inclusivity at BC Human Rights Tribunal

Competing values and the application of anti-SLAPP legislation: The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hansman v. Neufeld

The Right to React to Harmful Speech: SCC dismisses a defamation action using anti-SLAPP law, highlighting the public interest in protecting counter-speech

BC Commissioner Intervening BCTF v. Neufeld

Hansman v Neufled [2022] – West Coast Leaf

Some examples of paragraphs from his decisions

Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 10), 2026 BCHRT 49 – Final Decision

[305] We have also found that Mr. Neufeld exposed the Class to hatred or contempt, and published materials indicating discrimination against them. In doing so, Mr. Neufeld exposed the members of the Class to repeated messages that their very existence was a threat to children, families, and social order. He invoked the most insidious discriminatory stereotypes and tropes to denigrate their efforts to create an education environment that is inclusive for 2SLGBTQIA+ students. He used his power and public platform to call for their erasure in the public school system that they dedicate their working lives to. He described their lives and their loved ones in language that was dehumanizing, delegitimizing, and sought to strip them of their inherent dignity. These harms of hate and discriminatory speech are extremely serious and damaging: Oger (No. 7) at para. 226.

Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 11), 2026 BCHRT 50

[2]               Throughout the complaint, Mr. Neufeld has repeatedly and flagrantly demonstrated his disregard for the Human Rights Tribunal and its process. He has deliberately violated the Tribunal’s Rules and orders, undermining the fair and efficient processing of the complaint. His conduct has caused the CTA and the Tribunal to divert resources away from a resolution of the complaint on its merits, towards policing and correcting behaviour which Mr. Neufeld knew or ought to have known was wrong. In our view, this conduct warrants rebuke. We order Mr. Neufeld to pay CTA $10,000 in costs.


Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 8), 2025 BCHRT 64

[7]               In an August 2024 interview posted online, Mr. Neufeld divulged the following:

But then in February of this year they said ‘Hey Barry, the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association want to make a deal out of court.’ And I said ‘well, what do they want?’ And they said ‘they just want you to apologize for your opinions. They want you to take a sensitivity training so you can understand what transgender is all about. They want you to promise never to run for public office in BC again. And they want you to donate $50,000 to an LGBT charity.’ And I said ‘okay I’ll think about it.’

.…

 So I politely told them – I said ‘no, I won’t apologize. They won’t give me any names of who I’m apologizing to. I’m not going to take any Marxist puppy-dog training because I’ve studied this issue for six years. I know both sides of the argument, backwards and forwards. And they have no right to tell me I can’t run for public office. And finally, even if the money’s not mine’ – see my lawyers had told me that if there’s a penalty, my indemnity insurance would cover it – even if the money’s not mine, I don’t want it to go to an organization that damages children.’ 

So, that was that. And they said, ‘well that’s pretty stupid. You’re going to be found guilty of hate speech.’ And I said ‘well at my age, I don’t really care.’ So, within a couple of days I got a call from the insurance company and they said ‘you turned down a very reasonable settlement offer, we’re not going to cover your expenses anymore, you’re on your own.’  

… So that was in February…just this past February. So I started casting about, looking for a new lawyer. And well my government lawyer says ‘we’ll defend you but you’re going to lose anyways. But we need a retainer of $150,000.’ 

… And then there was another um pro bono law firm and they said I should’ve taken the deal, because I’m going to lose. 

Posted on

Riddle: Who has the final decision-making power?

Here is the riddle.

  1. School districts are the “clients” in human rights complaints. They are the ones we are filing against. We write out their names as being the respondents on complaint forms. They are the ones who show up to the hearing as the client. The secretary-treasurer will.
  2. Typically, clients hire lawyers. They are the ones who provide “instructions” to their lawyers. Lawyers can give them advice, but the clients are the ones who have the final say – decide to accept settlement offers or not.
  3. The School Protection Program (SPP) is the insurance for the school district for human rights complaints. They cover all costs, legal fees and settlement payments all paid for by insurance. (paragraph 2) Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No.9), 2025 BCHRT 310
  4. The SPP appoints the lawyers and pays for the legal fees of the lawyers.
  5. The lawyers send their invoices to the SPP to get paid for their work hours by insurance.
  6. So first part of the riddle, who is really the client? The school district or the one who pays the bills?
  7. BUT the SPP will also not agree to pay for their legal fees if a client they are covering for doesn’t accept a reasonable offer. As written in this decision. “within a couple of days I got a call from the insurance company and they said ‘you turned down a very reasonable settlement offer, we’re not going to cover your expenses anymore, you’re on your own.” (paragraph 6 & 7) Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 8), 2025 BCHRT 64. So clients cannot just decide to run parents into the ground without legal reason – or the insurance wont cover.
  8. So who has the final decision making power? The school districts will rely on the lawyers for their legal assessment of whether it is a reasonable settlement or not, or whether there is grounds to keep going and spend more legal fees than the settlement offer. (Insert eye roll) ** This is where it doesn’t make sense to me that an insurance company would go along with this. I take it when this happens it must mean their cost-risk assessment of people is wrong. They underestimate people.
  9. Insurance company relies on the lawyers for their assessment. They have read ALL the emails, know all the details of the case.
  10. The insurance company doesn’t attend the mediation meetings. So a risk analysis is done by who?
  11. Who profits on having as many billable hours as possible? Answer: Lawyers
  12. Partner status in a law firm is partly based on your ability to bring in clients and increase billable hours. You also benefit personally when the law firm does well, beyond just your salary.
  13. Who personally profits from how much law firms make from legal fees? Answer: Partners in law firms.

.
So, who has the final decision making power?

Who contributes their input into the cost-risk analysis of parents?

School districts? – relying on lawyers for their expertise and law analysis and also relying on the SPP for insurance coverage. Doesn’t sound like they are ones with most sway in this decision making process.

Or is the lawyers with partner status? The ones who personally profit from our human rights complaints?

The answer to this riddle is? To a varying degree, all three parties contribute.

I guess if the district just really wanted to settle and have it be over they could or should be able to pull the client card and say, these are my instructions, we want to settle. The lawyers, in theory, would need to do what they are instructed. There isn’t anyone from SPP that shows up to a mediation meeting.

My money is on the ones with the most sway – the lawyers. The Partners. The senior lawyers on the case. The ones who personally profit from the most billable hours.

Anyone else see the conflict here?

OH, and apparently the only ones keeping track of how much legal fees cost is the insurance company and the law firm. Not the school district and not the Ministry of Education.

Anyone else see the additional conflict here?

Posted on

Newsletter – February 1st, 2026

NEW BLOG: February 1st – EMAILS Question & Answer

News from the BC Human Rights Tribunal: User Feedback on Mediations

Noteworthy Facebook Posts: Here are a couple of Facebook posts that are noteworthy enough to send to your inbox on a Sunday…at least I think.

Ontario College of Teachers

This is a Facebook post from the Ontario College of Teachers that was just on my feed this morning.

(ID: Image of Balancing scales, laptop, books with text: “We are committed to transparency in regulating the teaching profession, and our disciplinary hearings are open to the public. See the full schedule of hearings and how to attend them: http://oct-oeeo.ca/mzm63z)

We used to have a teachers’ college in BC, but it was disolved to its toxicity, and the Ministry of Education absorbed it. The Professional Conduct Unit (Teacher’s Regulation Branch-TRB) is a department of the Ministry of Education and Child Care. For people who like to deep dive on the internet on topics, there was a report about it called “A College Divided: Report of the Fact Finder on the BC College of Teachers,” and there were many newspaper articles about how dysfunctional it was and was described as “toxic”.

There is a massive difference between the Ontario Teachers’ College and here in BC. One of the differences I have been dealing with through the OIPC. But that is a story for another day.

The Ontario Teachers’ College is focused on public trust and transparency. I have written previous blogs on my Speaking Up BC website about TRB and how much I do not like how they operate. (I will be combining them and writing a more organized blog in the future.) The websites are an example of how different they are. Ours is a maze, and theirs is clearer important information for parents.

They also give parents a copy of what teachers submit in their defence. Our TRB does not, and the only way to get access to them, so far, is through an application through the BC Human Rights Tribunal. You will only be able to get to apply for those if you have a failed settlement meeting and are going through document disclosure.

Just want to flag this for everyone. Our current regulatory system could be doing a much better job, better aligned with the public and not protecting teachers. They need to prioritize the needs of children, not adults who need professional development help.

I will link some info in the comments.

Here is the report: A College Divided: Report of the Fact Finder on the BC College of Teachers https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/reports-and-publications/2010_factfinder_report_bcct.pdf

Ontario College of Teachers website. They even have tab titled “public protection” https://www.oct.ca/en-ca

Our horrible TRB website https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/organizational-structure/ministries-organizations/boards-commissions-tribunals/commissioner-for-teacher-regulation

Here are some media articles about it.

The Tyee – Behind the Fight Over Who Runs BC’s College of Teachers

City News – BC Teachers College is Dysfunctional

CBC – Report Slams Teachers College

Hello Everyone,

My P.A.T.H website has been a way to share and collect information for parents/caregivers who are advocating for their neurodivergent/disabled children in the K-12 education system.

It has been a labour of love, healing, and peace for me. I am now quite pleased with the collection of information I am able to provide. Finally, I sleep very well at night.

Knowledge is power. Understanding the rules of the system is vital. It is a tough maze we walk through.

I am hoping people will share this information. I would love to see this rights-based information on other websites. It needs wings, and it needs to fly. So, parents, organizations, and other school advocates, I am pleading with you to add information about human rights, external complaint systems, education cases, and advocacy decisions to your own websites. You don’t need to link this back to me. Just take it and run with it. The priority should always be to provide information to support families so that they can support their kids. I don’t view the information on my website as belonging to me. I don’t own it. Take it, spread it and do more with it.

Some people don’t want to engage with lawyers or senior administrators. They feel it’s overwhelming and outside of their capacity. “It’s too much.” If you are advocating, you are engaging with their risk management process whether you want to be or not. I can assure you, the school will certainly be. I say this with my love in my heart, you either learn this stuff at a rate you can handle and try your best, or find an island to live on and unplug from society. There is no escape. They aren’t asking for your consent to participate in their risk management strategies. Because even if the school views you as a “nice, agreeable person” and of no concern, you are still being evaluated. You are just considered low risk. When resources are this scarce, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I can assure you – you have more in you than you even know.

Rights-based advocacy is our hope and pathway to equity. ❤️

Posted on

Building Advantage – Hearing Preparation

This post is going to be for the parent/caregivers who want to take their case to a hearing. If this is where you are going to find your peace, I want to help to get you there. This post is for you.

There is a concept that lawyers are taught – try and get every little advantage you can. Even if it is ever so small. Something as simple as even requesting a page extension for your submission. When dealing with the school district’s lawyers, don’t let anything slide. The belief is that many small advantages will build over time and it will benefit you eventually. It could be just what tips you over the line and you win. Every little thing, all of the details, they all will build your case. Don’t ever think…oh I’ll just let it go. It’s not a big deal. When preparing for a hearing, everything is a big deal. Fight to keep all the witnesses you want. Enter in all the documents you want. Take ALLL the time you need. They will fight you on things. Don’t give in.

There was a time when I could have let things slide, but I didn’t. I filled a specific type of application, which I didn’t “win”. However, the tribunal member obviously saw merit in what I was submitting. Not only in their response did they tip their hat to the work I had done so far, they gave me a gift I never asked for, wasn’t expecting, and something they didn’t have to do. They were levelling the playing field between a self-represented parent and the lawyers. They saw the injustice in what I was reporting. It was because I didn’t let anything slide that I got this gift, which were two legal tests for my hearing. If I proved either one of these legal tests, I won my case. It gave me a target.

So on the fifth day of the hearing, I believe I won one of the legal tests. We’ll call it legal test on the left. I could tell the exact moment the tribunal member and the respondent lawyer realized I met one of the legal tests. They couldn’t control their body language. They just reacted. It wasn’t subtle either. I can recall that moment like it is a clip from a movie.

However, in the end the tribunal member went with legal test on the right. The legal test on the left would have helped a very very small group of students, only for those in unique situations. The legal test on the right, would impact everyone. I believe she was trying to make the most impact with the evidence she had before her. So, the tribunal member went with legal test on the right. I have absolutely peace about that. All I wanted from this decision was a specific “duty” and I got that and more. I also think she was protecting me from a Judicial Review, with a more solid legal analysis. Regardless, the story ends well.

If I let certain things slide from the lawyers, and I didn’t submit that application, I never would have gotten those two legal tests, which were a guiding light to me.

Don’t. Let. Anything. Slide.

Every little funky-monkey move they (lawyers/school staff) make, or incorrect information written in an email, don’t let it slide. Because years later if they made a statement that your kid is doing fine, and you didn’t respond to that, they may use that as evidence that you agreed your kid was doing fine.

There is an exception to the don’t let anything slide rule…. if you think they are just poking at you to get a reaction, absolutely let those things slide. Depends on how obvious it is or what they are doing, you may be able to do something with all of that later. You may want to file an improper conduct complaint with the tribunal or file a complaint against them with the Law Society. Depending on how desperate they are, sometimes they may do things that are serious infractions. Lawyers have a Code of Conduct they must follow. Good to be aware. They aren’t allowed to play dirty.

If they think you are truly intending to bring your case to a hearing, you may notice that they will lay out little bread crumbs hoping you will pick it up, so they can engage with you. Weird stuff will start happening or things that are uncharacteristic of the district/school. They want to pull you in closer to them. If you want that hearing, I suggest you don’t pick them up.

The schools and lawyers will always underestimate you. In the beginning I have to admit, I was offended. I was insulted how little they thought of me. Then I realized, it helped me out a lot. If you want that hearing…let them underestimate you. They will be assuming that you will be settling a couple of weeks before a hearing. Let them think that. Stay under the radar. Then pop out hearing ready at the end. You may catch them a lot less prepared.

For the day to day advocacy, we don’t want to seem adversarial with our child’s school so we let the little things go. They know this. We are afraid of being picky. Or being annoying. Or being too much. They count on us feeling this way, and they take advantage of that.

They aren’t letting anything slide. They take every possible advantage they can. We can’t let anything slide either. Otherwise we risk losing a hearing we shouldn’t have, a weak settlement offer and/or possibly a successful dismissal application.

While navigating the BC Human Rights Tribunal speak up when you notice things aren’t fair, and ask lots of questions. Push the line. Ask for what you need. On the school level, speak up when they make statements about your child that you don’t agree with.

Just do it In writing. Of course.

ALL of the details matters. They all add up.

Posted on

Liability in Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good news is. And there is good news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a fine line we walk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message will self destruct in 5 seconds.

EDIT TO ADD: Jan 29, 2026

School Protection Program

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

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

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

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

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

See page 10

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

Including:

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

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

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

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

Here is the administrators handbook:

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

Posted on

Systemic Imperfection

Our systems, organizations, politics, cities, committees, boards, non-profit organizations, and every other team effort is not perfect.

There are gaps and administrative unfairness in every single system. If you ever want to understand why our systems are the way they are, read policy books from Deborah Stone (Eg. Policy Paradox” The Art of Political Decision Making) and you’ll understand how strategic this is from a political point of view. The division of resources is certainly not by accident.

Then focus on the next layer: the individuals.

Humans also work on these teams and people make mistakes. We are not a perfect species by any measuring yardstick. We are flawed and we are constantly learning and growing. We have our own trauma, imperfect childhoods, different brain structures and chemical exchanges, different age development stages, different frameworks within how we see the world, and temporary feelings rising and falling in the mix of every single day. Throw in some egos, status, hierarchy, culture, gender expectations, and all social constructions into the constant movement of social interactions. It can be messy. Let’s say that. I am impressed we are able to communicate and work as well as we do.

If we wait for systems and people to be perfect before we enter them or interact with them, we will be dead before that ever happens.

Our external complaint systems are not perfect.

But, they are all we have.

If we stop engaging with them, filing complaints, we are screwed.

External complaint systems are the only source of outside eyes looking into the school system. They are the only hope at accountability and transparency. No one else has access. No other outside organizations can force them to hand over documents or force them testify. If the school districts didn’t know they existed and didn’t think parents would use them, it would be a free for all. They would be untouchable. I have seen what happens when school employees think they are untouchable. It’s bad.

There would be no OIPC for access to information. There would be no Ombudsperson connected to policy and fairness. There would be no regulatory body for teachers and teacher standards to use. We would have no way to enforce human rights and force schools to provide our kids support. No one to force them to have to justify their actions. No one else is watching. But parents are.

Is everyone’s complaint going to be successful? No. It’s not. There is common sense and then there is the limitations of law and process, with cut off dates and made up rules of trying to put a human experience into a box.

But this is how we push the line. This is how we create human rights law (BC HRT), school policy (through settlement agreements), consent resolutions (TRB complaints), orders (OIPC decisions), directions (Ombudsperson decisions and case summaries), that create tools for change. Parents can actually create these tools to pick at the system by their complaint filing and settlements.

Why on earth this immense responsibility for parents to be THE accountability system is BEYOND me.

So until the government system decides an alternative option to help us in this matter, we are on our own. (Some people think school trustees are this alternative option, but some parents feel that school trustees are just upholding the system and colluding with districts.) I don’t even know if school trustees see themselves as an accountability system to the public. Do they? I know some do… but as a whole?

Parents are powerful. The school system doesn’t want you to know this. They want you to be scared. Fearful of making decisions. Fearful of stepping out of line… and dare I say… being a trouble maker???

I don’t suggest to people that they kill a fly with a house and just start filing complaints over every issue. A lot of the time things can be resolved through internal advocacy going all the way up the chain. It’s more collaborative and can be quicker.

BUT.

If you feel like you are a hamster on a wheel and going absolutely no where. If you think they are not motivated to resolve the issues and are just using delay tactics.

Then something to keep in your back pocket….is the external complaint system.

As we navigate external complaint systems or contemplate entering them, a VERY important truth to understand is liability in education.

Every time we file a complaint, we create data. If government systems don’t hear from parents they think everything is hunky-dory. It also forces the schools to be transparent with these external complaint systems and be examined. If they feel like at any moment they are going to have to justify their decisions, they won’t feel like they can get away with stuff in the same way, right from the beginning.

Knowing that they may have to justify their decisions WITH EVIDENCE in front of the tribunal encourages them to want to limit their damage period.

Bellow are some of the decisions that parents have created through filing complaints. I have created a DECISIONS FOR ADVOCACY page under the Education Law tab. We can use these decisions in our advocacy if required. Click the button below.

Thank you parents/caregivers!! Inch by inch, we are making progress. Now we need to take these decisions and use them as our tools. For all of the areas that we still need decisions in, we still have work to do.

Decisions for Advocacy

Posted on

Keeping Your Child’s Information Private

There is a way to keep your child’s information private as you go through the BC Human Rights Tribunal process (BC HRT). If you want to request that something specific happen you can email your case manager and they may tell you that you need to submit an application or they may be able to just respond to your request in the email. If you do send a request you must cc: the school districts in your email. Not every application that you submit will have a public decision, but it’s possible that a decision regarding your process/request could be posted on their website. These applications are things like amending your complaint, joining complaints if you file a family status complaint connected to yourself, fast-tracking, etc.

You can apply for your case to be anonymized. The the BC HRT will anonymize a minors human rights complaint automatically anyways as it is part of their rules, but it is always good to communicate your wishes.

Page 3 of their RULES book

Complaints about minors

(7) In an application to limit public disclosure of information that would identify a minor, the
tribunal will presume that the minor’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in access
to the tribunal’s proceedings.

Or if you specifically don’t want the district to be anonymized, it’s good to put this in the application and explain why it is in the public interest for them to be identified. (See below for case example) HINT: The school districts REALLY don’t like to be named. You can use it to you advantage to put pressure on a settlement.

The BC HRT doesn’t really advertise this, but if you don’t want to settle and you want a hearing, you can also apply for a “CLOSED” hearing so that no one from the public attends.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am going to write a blog on this specific topic, but I just want to drop some info. If the school districts lawyers are trying to scare you by saying they are going to force your child to testify and be a witness at the hearing – NICE TRY. Just because they may want them on the witness list, doesn’t mean they are going to get it. The BC HRT makes all of their decisions in the best interest of the child. But the respondents LOVE to dangle this threat as a way to send your protective parent instincts into overdrive. But, more on this later.

How you do either of these options (anonymization and closed hearing) is by filing out an application.

Go to the FORMS page on the BC HRT website.

You will be filling out a 7.1 GENERAL APPLICATION.

You will be asking to anonymize your child’s name. You don’t need to anonymize the districts name, but they will most likely fight for their name to be anonymized too. Their argument is often that it may expose the identity of the child. You can argue back. There are cases where the identity of the child is anonymized and the district is not. Or if that is not something you wish for, you can agree to anonymize the district as well.

Read everything on the form. There is a process that you have to go through before you submit it. You need to contact the school district lawyers and ask them if they agree. They will have to provide you with “their position” on your application. When you email them, I suggest you give them a deadline. Ask them to respond to you within 5 business days.

This is the same form you can ask for a closed hearing. Just tick off OTHER and write “closed hearing” on the PURPOSE OF APPLICATION page. They give you space to answer their questions, but you can always just write “see attached” and then type up your answers. You can submit up to 10 pages.

REMEMBER: They are always going to analyze you through a cost-risk lens. If you become too expensive, they are going to be more encouraged to settle with you. It costs them big money to respond to applications. So if your mediation meeting fails, become expensive.

Here is a list of some decisions around anonymization.

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

[8]               Rule 5(7) presumes that a minor’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in accessing the Tribunal’s proceedings. As such, it is appropriate to limit publication of information that could identify the Student in connection with this complaint.

Mother A obo Child B v. School District C, 2015 BCHRT 64

[21]           Rule 5(7) establishes a presumption respecting minors for good reason. Children are vulnerable, in some cases fragile, and those with disabilities even more so. It is difficult enough growing up in the face of existing peer pressure without having the additional burden of adult-driven issues being superimposed in a public way in their formative years. Moreover, these issues may not be readily understood by other children and used as a tool of ridicule and hurt. While some public exposure is inevitable, broad public exposure through unrestricted publication is neither necessary nor in the child’s best interests. At this stage of the proceedings, I find that the privacy interests of Child B outweigh the interests of the public and Child B’s identity and that of Mother A shall be anonymized.

[27]           I note that Mother A alleges that the complaint and future outcome are specific to the policies and practices of this particular district. Further, she says that understanding which district is involved may be important for the public, or future complainants in School District C or other districts. I find that school districts are large public institutions that touch a broad spectrum of the public. The reasons advanced by Mother A for identifying School District C reflect a legitimacy and the sentiment found in para. 11 of the School District 61 case cited above. In the circumstances as they currently stand, I find that there is nothing that outweighs the public’s interest in knowing the identity of School District C and the open court principle.

[28]           Therefore, I am prepared to grant School District C the requested anonymization for the purposes of only this decision. Unless a further order of the Tribunal is obtained, School District C shall be identified in all subsequent proceedings. If the Respondent School District C finds unique circumstances that weigh in favour of its anonymization, it may reapply for such an order.

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

In this case the mother and child wanted to be named. The school did not want to be named. Child was anonymized until she is an adult and then can apply to have her name added. School lost their application and the decision was to name them.

(29) I appreciate that naming the School could make it easier for motivated and diligent people to identify the people who were involved in the events of this complaint. In that respect, my order will not perfectly protect the people involved. However, I find that – unlike the individual educators and staff involved – there is a specific public interest in the identity of the School as a publicly funded institution serving the public: A obo B v. School District 61, 2014 BCHRT 105 at para. 11. I am not persuaded that this public interest is outweighed by the potential that some of the educators may then be identified. There have already been a number of complaints and proceedings involving the educators and staff, and Mrs. Ehmke points out that many people within the community already know about the complaint.

(30) I deny the application to limit publication of the name of the School.

To search up more decisions, here are instructions on how to use CanLii.