Masking – Students who say – “I’m fine”

There are a lot of kids out there who are masking at school. They are like calm ducks on the outside and their feet are paddling a mile a minute under the water.

Parents are raising concerns in meetings, and the teacher or counsellor will pull the child aside and ask them if they are ok. Child says, “I’m fine”. The teacher will report back to the parent, “We had a conversation with them and they say they are fine.” Implying that the parent is overreacting.

Meanwhile, we are ready to rip our faces off, desperate for the school to take our concerns seriously as we see the meltdowns and dysregulation when they get home.

This comes from the Meaningful Inquiry decision from a self-representing parent. If you have a child who masks during the day, these paragraphs may be helpful for your advocacy. With this decision, you have evidence that the tribunal says: It is not enough for the school to accept “I’m fine” from a child.

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

[96] On balance, I am not persuaded that the District’s response to the situation after April 24, 2019, was a reasonable one. The Parent had brought forward relevant facts of the Student’s diagnoses and the toll that school was taking on her. I do not accept that the onus was entirely on the Parent or Student to utter the magic word of “accommodation” before the school took steps to explore the reasons that the Student’s mental health was being so impacted by school. Nor do I accept that the simple fact that a 13-year-old child with anxiety says they are “fine” is enough to end a school’s obligations. At this point, the school had enough information to understand that something at school was adversely impacting the Student in connection with her disabilities, and it was in the best position to investigate the causes. If it felt it needed more information from the Parent or the Student, it could have and should have asked. Again, the goal is to ensure that the Student is afforded equitable access to an education.

[97] I distinguish the cases cited by the District. In Purdy v. Douglas College, 2016 BCHRT 117, the complainant was an adult in post-secondary education. She requested, and was granted, accommodations in her course load and support navigating various student services and her exam schedule. The College was proactive in asking the complainant whether she needed accommodation, including when she fell behind in her classes and was late handing in coursework. In response to the College’s inquiries, the complainant said she did not need accommodation and did not provide medical information that the College requested. In her human rights complaint, the complainant argued that the College failed to identify she was struggling and failed to act to support her in her education: para. 72. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint in part because the College could not have known she required further accommodation.

[98] Importantly, unlike the District in this case, the College in Purdy had repeatedly asked the complainant whether she required accommodation and offered her opportunities to submit medical information. Having done that, it was entitled to rely on the complainant’s statements that she did not require accommodation, rather than “speculate” about what she might need: para. 75. In contrast here, the District was not proactive in asking the Student and Parent about possible accommodations and offering the opportunity to provide medical information. And I cannot conclude that, in light of what it knew from the Parent, the District’s obligations were satisfied after the Student – a child – said she was fine.

[99] Next, in B v. School District, 2019 BCHRT 170, the evidence supported that the school district provided the child with the recommended supports and accommodations. The Tribunal found that it was “only with hindsight” that it was possible to say that the child could have benefited from more support: para. 81. It dismissed the complaint in part because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the school district reasonably ought to have known that the child required more: para. 98. In contrast here, I have found that the District had sufficient information to trigger some kind of inquiry or response beyond asking the Student how she was doing and, assuming the counsellor did this, advising of available supports.

[100] In short, I agree with the District that the Parent and Student were obliged to bring forward information relating to accommodation. The Parent did that, when she communicated that the Student had anxiety and trichotillomania and that school was taking a significant toll on her physical and mental health. That information should have been enough to prompt a meaningful inquiry by the school to identify what was triggering the Student’s symptoms and what supports or accommodations may be appropriate to ensure she was able to meaningfully and equitably access her education. The failure to take that step was, in my view, not reasonable. As a result, the disability-related impacts on the Student, arising from conditions in her Language 10 class between April 24 and June 27, 2019, have not been justified and violate s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

********

From the same case, the student who testified at the hearing explained this:

*******

[44] The counsellor then checked in with the Student, who reported that “she is doing well [and] is finding the workload fine”. In fact, I accept that the Student was not doing well. In her evidence, the Student explained, “I just wanted everything to be ok, so I said that it was” and “I didn’t want to make more of a hassle than was already happening so I didn’t want to add on it… I thought that I could just get it over with I guess”. The counsellor did not take further steps after this meeting.

********

In this case, discrimination was found and the tribunal made an order.

If your child is masking and it sounds and looks like this, it doesn’t need to be exactly that they say “I’m fine”. But are they saying other things that are similar?

If you are raising concerns, they have to investigate BEYOND just accepting your child saying they are fine.

This case highlighted, for the first time, the duty to inquire in education, and called it “Meaningful Inquiry”

A parent needs to inform the school that their child is struggling and that they believe this struggle is connected to their disability. The school must investigate. They have to be proactive and ensure the child is receiving equitable access to their education.

It also brought forward and defined expectations around self-advocacy for students with disabilities.

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

*******

If you take your case to hearing, or are even in a mediation meeting, the school knows that they will need to provide the tribunal with documentation and evidence that they are providing a child with reasonable accommodations. If they can’t do that, they know they are in trouble. Hence, when you start using rights-based language in your emails, advocacy can be very effective. They are thinking of their liability and the damage period.

To read more about the nuggets from this case, here are more blogs:

Self-Advocacy and Victim Blaming

Self-Advocacy, Meaningful Inquiry, IEP, Transition to High School

Part 3 – Meaningful Inquiry Duty to Inquire

As always, I encourage people to read the case in full.

July 24, 2026

Teacher Training – Is it enough?

One of my children had a particularly stressful year in school. It flipped both our lives upside down. I left my work because of it. The teacher was ill-equipped to teach a child with learning disabilities. Added to the mix, there were issues of severe bullying within the class. Without going into specifics, it was an “active” classroom on top of everything else. I was so frustrated about the whole situation and felt the adults in the room really didn’t know what they were doing. Some of the information I was providing to them about disability felt very basic to me. Their old school traditional ways of teaching were not working. And just increasing the intensity of traditional pedagogy was making things worse.

Years later I found out from another parent who volunteered in the school that the classroom teacher was frequently, almost on a daily basis, leaving the class in tears. She also had two very young children at home, and I can imagine now just how overwhelmed she must have felt.

Jumping ahead a few years, it was revealed during the hearing at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, for my other child, just how ill-equipped and lacking in knowledge related to disability and mental health the teachers and school counsellors really were.

It seems people’s individual knowledge and skill level had more to do with their own interest, motivation, work experience and self-learning. This produces such a wide spectrum of knowledge among educators. Some people have been amazing and very helpful. People I relied and on and was so thankful for their knowledge. Other people, I wonder how on earth they got here.

One teacher at our hearing, under oath, testified that after graduating from a well respected university program that the word “accommodation” wasn’t something that they had heard of. Ummm….teaching universities…..you might want to review your education program. Shall I name you and read out the transcript? Or was the teacher lying? Or were they confused? A classic defense. Apparently everyone becomes confused when allegations appear. And yet tribunals write in decisions that educators are the experts and they get to decide what professional recommendations to implement or discard.

Teachers are graduating with so little knowledge in their duty to accommodate, human rights, disability and mental health. Basic mental health, like anxiety. Professional development workshops on inclusion are optional. WTF! It sends the wrong message. Apparently skills in inclusive education are nice to have but not essential. Our kids are optional folks!

At another hearing from the BC Human Rights Tribunal, an educator admitted “We aren’t trained for this”. What are you trained for? Teaching the neurotypical kids who are natural sponges and have no barriers for learning? Is that it?

I know there are recent efforts to improve training and skills in educators, and some people currently completing education ready to bust out, but it is still optional for educators and we need a lot MORE! We need to take these researchers and teachers of teachers and clone them. Spread them everywhere.

So many students are not even identified because teachers can’t even tell when a child has a learning disability. I assumed all teachers would be able to identify this. Nope. The skills and knowledge that staff have are very inconsistent. The best teachers are the ones when their own children have disabilities or themselves and they can take their own lived experience and knowledge and combine it with their foundational training. I don’t know what we would do if we didn’t have them.

I knew one teacher who had ADHD didn’t want to disclose it to their colleagues for fear they would think less of them. What does that tell you??

Even with literacy screening recently in kindergarten, do teachers know what to do next? There is no shame is admitting, that you don’t. It’s not your shame to carry, it’s the post-secondary institutions that you paid good money to. There are surveys and research being done and with reports of “severe instruction deficiencies” for teachers who know how to teach kids with dyslexia. Go ahead and take a deep dive on the internet. If you are lost and confused, you are not alone. An education law book was very explicit over how much administrators lack knowledge in education law and human rights.

I don’t want to start giving personal examples about just how shocking the myths, stereotypes and lack of knowledge around disability is amongst classroom teachers and administrators. I was stunned. My trust was completely shook during the hearing. I thought to myself, wow, I really gave them a lot more credit and depended on them than I ever should have. From this point forward I need to assume no one knows anything. You want evidence of just how serious of an issue this is, you can come to my home and read through all of the evidence I have organized in binders.

The number of teachers and educational assistants willing to work in the education system are becoming so low, districts are hiring “responsible adults”. Oh my goodness. Please send help.

I would really love a HUGE spotlight to be tilted towards post-secondary education programs for teachers, and professional development workshops on inclusion and disability. The fact that parents are still dealing with teachers who are punishing neurodivergent/disabled kids because they don’t have “listening bodies” is incredibly frustrating and discriminatory.

WHY are disability and inclusion professional development workshops optional? That is quite the message. Received loud and clear. As a system, do you not find this embarrassing? The teachers who are not signing themselves up for this kind of training, I would argue, are probably the ones who need it the most. The undercurrent of this blog is ableism. Who are we prioritizing? Who are we ignoring? Who are we making optional? Let us think and reflect on this.

Teachers, this can’t be fun for you either. Can you imagine how stressful it would be to have so much responsibility, be held to standards, to potentially be defending your decisions in a hearing, and not even be properly provided with information and skill to do your job in the first place?

This is a topic where I feel we can all come together and be on the same page. It benefits everyone to have teachers feel confident and be skilled.

Improved mandatory teacher training in disability,
mental health and inclusive pedagogy please!!

Please don’t send teachers the message that teaching kids with disabilities are optional.

July 15, 2026July 15, 2026

School Trustees

We are having elections this fall. It is a big deal and a big commitment for people to make when they run for a school trustee role.

You are in the public eye. Under the microscope. Some districts more than others. Some districts make the news and clips of their board meetings are spread on social media. Other districts, the general public doesn’t even know they exist. However, in those smaller towns, where everyone knows everyone, you may certainly be talked about just as much.

Parents have mixed views of trustees. We need them badly. We have so much hope in them. Some of that hope is unrealistic. Which, I am guilty of having. At the same time parents have had some negative experiences with interacting with some board members.

Trustees roles are impactful and limiting at the same time. They are not in the driver’s seat for many things and other things they are. Parents see them as the accountability mechanism, but yet trustees can only bring about accountability in very specific circumstances prescribed to them by legislation and policy. At the same time, districts vary greatly in how transparent and open they are to the public. Some districts limit and restrict delegations, public engagement or refuse to answer parents questions.

Trustees are our community members. Many of them are parents themselves. It can feel very confusing when we think they aren’t fighting for us, and at the same time they have liability restraints too. Being a trustee means that you are constantly working within the grey.

We have seen tremendous devotion to the role of school trustee, by fighting the government through the court system. We have seen trustees turn on each other. We have seen how a human rights complaint and other legal avenues are used as accountability systems for a trustee spouting hate speech. Board meetings can be sometimes be dry, uneventful and feel so performative. Some districts have accused trustees seeking accountability for bullying and harassment. If you have been paying attention in the last few years, as a whole it can be quite dramatic.

I tip my hat to anyone who wants to get into the ring. The ultimate form of service for your community. I know they take a lot of heat for things they aren’t responsible for or have no way of resolving on their own as the education system is massively underfunded. I have also seen first hand them defend, quite passionately, the rights of others when someone shows up unexpectedly with statements of hate. Parents also question how they allow superintendent and senior administrators salaries to become so inflated.

Some districts have been accused of suppressing the public involvement and being undemocratic, lacking in transparency. Parents have gone to the media to protest the limitations and unfairness.

I saw an old picture I found during an internet search of a school board meeting in the 1970’s and the room was packed. Standing room only. You couldn’t add a toothpick in that room. It was so interesting to read the emotions on people’s faces.

I cannot say this enough, please read up on your candidates and vote. Four years is a long time and many people continue and run again. Know where they stand and what their backgrounds are.

If you are interested in understanding and learning about education that goes beyond the scope of your child’s classroom, I encourage you to attend board meetings. Many of them offer online options to view the meetings that are more accessible. Attending in person can also be valuable to talk with the other parents in the room or to be able to talk to the board members during the break or after the board meeting. In my early days I was attending the board meetings in person for multiple purposes. I wanted to connect and learn about the board members. Figure out the roles and what happens here. I was depending on them for help. The district was failing me. They were my last hope. At the same time, my attendance was an act of resistance for the staff. A silent protest. Good luck ignoring me. I am not going away.

As I was navigating the years, I thought the Board was also against me. I was really confused. I was seeing mixed signals all over the place. I was weeding through bread crumbs of information that were being indirectly tossed out at me. I wondered how much the district was keeping the board in the loop. If you aren’t contacting the trustees directly, the district decides what information they are willing to share. I think there is a lot that they still don’t know.

This fall will be 7 years since I attended my first board meeting. I didn’t realize it. But as I was navigating through my pile of shit, they were also navigating through theirs. I now have more pieces of evidence that as evidence started to show up for them, they have been my secret ghost writer, backing me up. They shifted things in the district that were within their powers. Things I would never have been able to do without them. This was clearer to see when everything was done and I was able to re-examine everything with unfogged eyes. I realize now I have been funneling my anger at the wrong people. Change is never immediate.

For all the people who will be starting their first terms this fall with dewy eyes, I hear the learning curve is sharp.

Don’t lose yourself in the system.

You will need courage to do well.

You will need to be able to sit in the uncomfortable zones, hang out there for a while, and get curious.

I hope you evolve, take in all the experiences you can, and just get better and better.

For those of you who are stepping away, I hope you are proud of the work you have done. I hope you leave with a sense of peace. For those running again, I hope with good intentions, all the best.

Please vote.

July 10, 2026July 11, 2026

When a preferred EA is no longer supporting your child.

This case is from Ontario, not BC. It may be influential and cited by the school district’s lawyers.

M.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2026 HRTO 801

This case is about a parent who felt that when their child’s 1:1 EA (this specific person) was removed, that the school failed to accommodate their child.

Continuity of care is a topic that many parents are passionate about. Your child’s EA works so beautifully together with your child, and your child is doing so well; it can be very concerning when that specific EA is no longer supporting your child. What can you do?

There are a couple key learnings that we can takeaway from this case. There is no point in parents who are struggling with similar issues continually entering the human rights tribunal arena to have all their complaints dismissed.

Reading education cases can be very valuable as we learn what the tribunal will expect in terms of evidence and what we need to prove our case. We take this learning forward with us, and we are like the marshmallow man in Ghostbusters. As a community, we’ll just get bigger and bigger. It is because of their determination that we can learn from their decisions and be better prepared if you ever decide to file a complaint over similar issues. I hugely thank all parents willing to take this path. Every decision is GOLD.

Key Learnings

Stating your opinions or your feelings about how your child is not going to meet the bar of evidence required. You need documented evidence.
You need to be able to explain in detail events/areas of frustration & unmet needs, not just make vague assertions about your beliefs.
The school is documenting everything. Including what you say and what you DON’T say.

As always, I encourage you to read the case in full.

The student’s preferred EA was Mary Valmas. The applicant is the student’s parent. The EA, Mary Valmas was no longer working with the student in 2019-20.

*******

[25] Both applicant witnesses testified as to their belief that the claimant had done academically well when provided 1:1 services from SNC Mary Valmas and, after Mary Valmas was moved to another school, the claimant no longer received 1:1 support from Mary Valmas or any other SNC, the claimant was disadvantaged in no longer being able to fully participate or access meaningful education.

[26] I understand and accept from the two applicant witnesses that Ms. Valmas had a positive working relationship with the claimant and his mother. The evidence was that Ms. Valmas is very dedicated to her role and she wished for the success of the claimant. It is clear from the evidence that the claimant’s mother loves her son very much and the claimant’s mother was happy with the working relationship between the claimant and Ms. Valmas. On that basis she wished for it to continue.

*******

The school district had their witness, Ms. Jones.

********

[29] The claimant’s mother testified as to her belief that the claimant required the specific supports. However, I did not hear why, other than the claimant’s mother’s general belief that the claimant required disability-related accommodations at school and the accommodations of 1:1 support specifically with Ms. Valmas had been up to that point a positive experience for the claimant. As stated above, I agree and accept that the claimant required accommodations and I believe the mother that the claimant worked well with Ms. Valmas, but this testimony alone fails to adequately establish that the claimant required the 1:1 support by Ms. Valmas or another full time SNC.

[30] I preferred the respondent’s fully uncontradicted documentary and oral evidence from Michelle Jones. Ms. Jones’ testimony was fully supported by documentary evidence that were filed as exhibits. Ms. Jones testified that she was the Assistant Curriculum Lead of Special Education at John Polanyi Collegiate Institute (“John Polanyi”) with the respondent school board during the 2019-2020 school year. Ms. Jones testified that on January 25, 2016, the claimant’s family participated in an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) meeting before the claimant started secondary school at John Polanyi. At that IPRC, the claimant continued to be deemed “exceptional” with the exceptionality being a Mild Intellectual Disability.

[38] Rather, I preferred the respondent’s fully uncontradicted documentary and testimony evidence from Michelle Jones. Ms. Jones testified that in the 2019-2020 academic year the claimant was successful and arguably more successful than he had been in the two study years prior. I further reviewed the claimant’s Ontario Student Transcript, which showed that he earned all 8 of his credits taken during the 2019-2020 school year, whereas during the 2018-2019 school year, he only earned 7 credits as he did not pass mathematics and needed to repeat it and in the 2017-2018 school year, the Applicant earned 6 only credits, as he did not obtain his English or mathematics credits in his second semester.

********

Here is the big thing right here.

If you don’t write about concerns, then the assumption is that everything is fine.

********

[39] Moreover, Ms. Jones testified that during the 2019-2020 school year, she received no concerns by the claimant or his supports about any of his academic accommodations, social-emotional health, safety concerns or any concerns about how the supports being provided were failing to meet his needs.

********

Document. Document. Document.

Keep a timeline of “events”, issues or areas of frustration.

Email concerns you have about unmet needs not being reasonably accommodated.

If you bring your case to a hearing, this brings up the issue of parents providing evidence when they are not physically in the school witnessing anything and they are relying on their children’s information. That becomes a problem if you are going to testify and not your child.

Parents’ credibility is under scrutiny. For more information on this topic, I give you this blog. Does my Child Need to Testify?

This is why we rely on emails to document what is happening. What are the signs of distress or unmet needs that you are seeing at home? Keep a log. Write it down and then email the school and tell them. It will trigger meaningful inquiry. Part 7 – Applying the duty to accommodate – focus on needs.

*******

[42] For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed.

*******

Here is some excellent advice from a fellow parent advocate:

“This relates to something that I tell parents. If an individual staff member is providing an effective support to your child, make sure that you document in the IEP.

Many parents mistakenly assume that if one staff member implements successful accommodations, then that will continue through to the next year. But if its not in the IEP, a staff member doesn’t have to provide it.

Staff members often won’t be able to spontaneously tell you about successful supports they are implementing, as it’s often an inherent part of their teaching/support style. Asking questions and documenting responses when things are going well is just as important as doing it when things are not going well.

So if a teacher says in an IEP meeting that your child is writing amazing essays, ask what it looks like for supporting your child through completing that activity. Then, get any successful supports documented, so if your child starts struggling to write essays the following year, you can reference the IEP support that was proven to be successful.

Make them know from experience that you will follow up and hold the school accountable to implementing IEP accommodations. That way, they are more likely to carefully consider which staff members are going to be most able to implement those accommodations based on their personal support/teaching style. I find this often helps with them putting more thoughtful consideration into class/EA placement.”

July 8, 2026

Cease and Desist Letters

There are parents who have received a cease and desist letter. I don’t hear this often, but it does happen. Or they will be threatened with being given one.

Here is one example that went public.

Mom threatened with legal action after questioning B.C. principal who’s now accused of misappropriation

2014 letter from school board lawyer warned against ‘defamatory statements’ about Tricia Rooney

CBC News · Posted: Jan 25, 2023 4:12 PM PST | Last Updated: January 25, 2023

Mom threatened with legal action after questioning B.C. principal who’s now accused of misappropriation | CBC News

This parent knew something was wrong, and when she was questioning the spending she was served with a cease and desist letter. Years later, Tricia Rooney is investigated for misappropriating funds.

From the article:

“Last week, Lee’s phone “blew up” with messages from fellow parents when news broke that Rooney, also known as Tricia Low, was accused of misappropriating about $170,000 from Britannia Elementary, where she was principal from 2017 to 2020.

Lee says she felt somewhat vindicated by the news, but she was also angry.

“I have to unpack all the feelings that I have,” she said.

The allegations about misappropriation at Britannia are contained in a notice of claim filed against Rooney earlier this month on behalf of the school board, alleging “conversion, theft and fraud” from the tiny east side school. It includes allegations that she stole donated gift cards intended for families in need.”

One parent whom I am aware of, in another province, was served a cease and desist order because they were on a public platform and they were crying over what was happening with their child. The school district wasn’t aware, but this parent had retained a lawyer for over a year and they were building their case. After the cease and desist order, the lawyer hit them with with something so severe, that they would have begged for a human rights complaint. I thought, oooohhhhh these school district lawyers have made a BIG mistake. They had no idea who they were messing with. It’s a risky move for them to send this to a parent. You are poking the bear.

If you get served a letter like this, I would highly suggest you consult a lawyer.

Depending on what they are wanting you to stop doing, if anything, it may be appropriate to use it in your human rights complaint.

Here is my lawyer referral list. There are paid and free options on this list.

Lawyer Referral – Parent Advocacy Tribunal Help (School Advocacy)

July 5, 2026July 5, 2026

It is not about intent. It is about impact.

You do not need to prove or have evidence that your child’s school intended to harm them. That it was on purpose. Just that they did.

Let’s travel back in time to January 2020. Pre-COVID. I started an online course on Rental Property Management. I was lost in terms of what I wanted to do for work. There were aspects of rental property that intrigued me. Enough for me to take up an online course and see where it leads. This decision changed the course of my life.

I was reading a chapter a month, then took the online test. Each month, one more chapter. Then COVID hit. I had more time on my hands. Two chapters a month.

I found it to be quite boring. The only two chapters I found interesting were the chapter on law and the other one on human rights. A flag, a road sign, an indication of my interests. I started to read chapter 14 on human rights in the middle of August. (Note: One-year timeline for my child’s complaint was September 19th, 2020). At first, I was unaware the clock was ticking. I was reading through the chapter, and my eyes read this line:

“…the Human Rights Code does not require an actual intent to contravene (section 2). Thus, unintentional acts that have the effect of discrimination are prohibited under the HRC and are subject to the HRC’s remedies.”

This chapter was FULL of information all about the human rights process, complaint filing, and discrimination.

And I couldn’t stop thinking about it.

If you could envision a train going down one track, and someone pulling the lever to switch tracks. This was it. What was holding me back was that I thought I would have to prove that they intended to hurt her. I didn’t know how I would gather evidence for that. I didn’t have evidence for that at the time or that I would ever get it. (Through the application process, I did gather evidence of horror.)

I had previously looked at the BC HRT website, but it all looked really scary to me and overwhelming looking at all of the information. The never-ending pages.

It was THAT sentence and THAT chapter that sent me off to the Human Rights Clinic. It was easier to digest the content and the information when reading it all in chapter format than reading it off in sections on a website. I sent an email, with evidence attached, to the BC Human Rights Clinic. My question was, can I file a human rights complaint? 5 days later, they called me back. Told me to file.

And I was off.

The rest is history.

People usually need to feel that people are doing things intentionally to hurt their kids to justify filing a human rights complaint. School staff can be so ableist and ignorant that they don’t even realize the harm they are causing. Completely oblivious. They could also be prioritizing administrative convenience and other justifications that they willfully looked the other way. They may truly believe and think they are in the right, believing that they have teacher autonomy and they can decide if your child gets accommodations or not. That they don’t have to follow the IEP. It’s their classroom. Their circus. You don’t need to prove that they intended to harm your child, just that they did.

It all comes down to the discrimination test.

Which you have the burden to prove, with evidence.

It’s not about intent. It’s about impact.

*******

Human Rights Code:

Discrimination and intent

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

********

This is from the BC HRT website on Leading cases: Test for discrimination

Leading cases: Test for discrimination

“Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61
To prove discrimination, a complainant has to prove that:

they have a characteristic protected by the Human Rights Code [Code];
they experienced an adverse impact with respect to an area protected by the Code; and
the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.
.

Once a complainant proves these three things, the respondent can defend itself by proving its conduct was justified. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to occur (para. 33).”

**********

I filed my first human rights complaint 5 days before the one-year timeline. Like Indiana Jones, I slid through just in time…and grabbed my hat.

July 1, 2026July 1, 2026

Does a single comment violate the Code?

Staff and parents have filed or are considering filing a human rights complaint because of a comment another employee or educator said to them at work or during an IEP meeting.

The story comes out. Followed by some version of: “I can’t believe they said that to me.”

Does a single comment violate the Code?

*********

Brito v. Affordable Housing Societies and another, 2017 BCHRT 270

[41] However, not every negative comment that is connected to a protected characteristic will be discriminatory harassment contrary to the Code. It is certainly undesirable for people to treat each other rudely, disrespectfully, or inappropriately. However, it is not the Tribunal’s purpose to adjudicate disputes other than where a person’s protected characteristic has presented as a barrier in their ability to fully, and with dignity, access an area of life protected by the Code. In performing this function, the Tribunal is cognizant that the disputes brought to it arise between human beings, with all the imperfection that entails. Not every failure to be kind or professional requires state intervention. This includes failures with discriminatory overtones – and therefore highlights a distinction between comments that may be “discriminatory” in the everyday sense of that word, and comments that amount to discrimination, within the meaning and scope of human rights legislation.

[43] In the analysis of whether negative comments rise to a level of harassment that adversely affects a person in their tenancy, the context is critical. Where conduct occurs during a single incident, or does not otherwise amount to a pattern of conduct, the Tribunal will consider all of the circumstances to determine whether it violates the Code: Hadzic v. Pizza Hut Canada (c.o.b.Pizza Hut), [1999] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 44 at paras. 32-33; Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71. Those circumstances include “the involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against”: Pardoat para. 12.

*********

One of the cases listed here is an education case.

Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71

[12] In my view, all the circumstances must be taken into account when considering whether a single comment could constitute a contravention of the Code. Without suggesting that this is an exhaustive list, some of the relevant factors would be the egregiousness or virulence of the comment, the nature of the relationship between the involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against.

If you want to research whether you think your single comment would reach the level of discriminatory harassment that created a barrier, you can search for other cases on CanLii. Here are my instructions. I found many cases by entering “single comment” in the DOCUMENT TEXT field.

I highly suggest you research other decisions and see if your situation is similar to or different from the decisions you find. It will help you determine if going this path is worth it to you as a way to resolve this. Resolution often can take many paths, and filing an external complaint is just one of your options.

Hate Speech and Harassment

The tribunal went through a LONG analysis of what is hate speech with this very well-known decision that got a lot of media attention. The School Trustee had to pay &750,000.00 for his ongoing explosions of hate speech.

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

[120] The analysis of hate speech is driven by the dual harms it is intended to address: (1) the “grave psychological and social” harms experienced by individual members of the targeted group, and (2) the larger social harms caused by speech which “propagates, within social discourse, premises of inferiority that may gradually desensitize the majority and lay the groundwork for later, broad attacks”: Whatcottat paras. 73-74; Wardat para. 62. This second, social, harm is rooted in the recognition that “the end goal of hate speech is to shift the environment from one where harm against vulnerable groups is not tolerated to one where hate speech has created a place where this is either accepted or a blind eye is turned”: Whatcottat para. 131. This purpose-driven perspective must account for the specific context affecting the targeted group and the types of speech that, by drawing on pre-existing fears or stereotypes, is likely to expose that group to hatred or contempt.

[121] A finding of hate speech is reserved for extreme and egregious examples of delegitimizing expression, whose harms “cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience”: Wardat para. 61; Whatcottat para. 46. Section 7(1)(b) of the Code does not protect against “hurt feelings, humiliation or offensiveness”: para. 47. It does not capture speech that is derogatory, false, or discrediting, or which ridicules, belittles or affronts the dignity of a group of people, including through the application of stereotype. Importantly for the purposes of this case, it does not capture speech which debates or speaks out “against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups”, unless the speech is made in a manner “which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects”: Whatcottat para. 145.

[122] Hate speech exposes its targets to detestation and vilification. It includes “a component of looking down on or denying the worth of the other”: Whatcottat para. 43. Speech that exposes a target group to detestation tends “to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike”: Whatcottat para. 41. It seeks to “abuse, denigrate or delegitimize [the group], to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy, or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience”. Speech vilifying a group accuses “them of disgusting characteristics, inherent deficiencies or immoral propensities which are too vile in nature to be shared by the person who vilifies”: Whatcottat para. 43.

*********

For those who are wondering if filing a complaint over a single comment will be dismissed in a dismissal application, I highly suggest you speak to a lawyer.

Here is my lawyer referral list. Some are paid, and some are free.

June 29, 2026June 30, 2026

Settlements and Legal Fees 2012-2026 (Public Schools) – Students and Employees

Why are legal fees that school districts spend SOOOOOOOOO much money on such a mystery???

We already have an OIPC decision that states legal totals do not expose privileged information, so they aren’t protected under the privacy laws. So why the secrecy?

*********

OIPC Decision – Order 1728

[49] For the reasons given above, I find that ss. 14, 17 and 22 do not apply to
the information in issue. Therefore, under s. 58 of FIPPA, I order that the City is
required to disclose the settlement amount and the legal fee amount by August
18, 2015 pursuant to s. 59 of FIPPA. The City must concurrently copy the OIPC
Registrar of Inquiries on its cover letter to the applicant, together with a copy of
the information it provides to the applicant.

**********

Where do you find information that shows their legal spending?

So far that I am aware of, there are two places.

The first one is their Statement of Financial Information that you will find on the main district website under their Board’s financial information section. This is posted every year by December 31st. If they spend over $25,000.00, they have to publicly report it and post it.

The second place is through the Ministry of Finance and the School Protection Program. This is the school’s insurance plan that covers legal fees for human rights complaints. This is where I have been sending my Freedom of Information Requests. If you want to send your own FOI requests, it will cost you $10 and I will write below what I requested. You can file your own and improve on what I have collected.

I first started doing this in 2022. I have just completed another batch. I am a persistent little bugger.

Below are screenshots of the information. However, not very accessible to read. So, I have put everything into an Excel sheet. Kapow!!

The first sheet has the main districts of the Lower Mainland and their legal fees for the last few years from the SOFI. I have mostly focused on the law firm Harris and Company, as they are a very popular law firm for school districts. But there are other law firms that school districts use. The other popular one that is used frequently is Guild Yule and Farris. Then a bunch of other law firms that don’t particularly focus on education but have experience in human rights and insurance.

Below is the link to this document. Click on the different sheets to navigate through all of the data.

I am posting this information because I want this to spark conversation.

What do you think of all of this?

Does it bring up further questions?

What is the difference between the money spent on what is covered by insurance and by what is not?

What is the insurance company’s criteria for what they will cover?

If the district goes rogue and wants to spend their own money on an issue, can and do they do that?

Why don’t we know about any of this?

Why doesn’t the Ministry of Education refuse to keep track of this?

We are talking about MILLIONS of dollars!

Fighting disabled children who are trying to get an education. Schools aren’t fighting parents. They are fighting CHILDREN. The parents are just representing their kids on the complaint. The complainant is the child.

Are we good with this? Public? Hmmmm.

Any thoughts?

Click on the Lawyer Fee Data Sheet to dive in.

LAWYER FEE DATA SHEET

This is what my FOI request on my last one 2024-26

“From the School Protection Program, liability discrimination claims connected to human rights complaints within K12 public schools. The total costs of legal fees and settlement amounts, including how many claims there were for each year (Date Range for Record Search: From 2/10/2024 To 2/5/2026)”

Please use my data as a stepping stone for your own searches.

June 19, 2026June 19, 2026

Reasonable Accommodations for “General Education”

This is a new education case that was posted on June 16th, 2026. This is from Alberta. While it is not binding in BC because it is from a different province, cases from other provinces are still influential and are used by human rights tribunal decision makers to help them interpret and apply human rights law to the case they have in front of them.

JF obo DF v Calgary Board of Education, 2026 AHRC 68

There are some paragraphs in this case that succinctly outline the duty to accommodate. As always I recommend people read the case in full. Lots of details in there about the specific circumstances of the case.

Duty to Accommodate

[26] The starting point for an analysis of accommodation is found in Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v Renaud,[8] where the Supreme Court of Canada described accommodation as a “multi-party” process:

The search for accommodation is a multi-party inquiry. Along with the employer and the union, there is also a duty on the complainant to assist in securing an appropriate accommodation…

To facilitate the search for an accommodation, the complainant must do his or her part as well. Concomitant with a search for reasonable accommodation is a duty to facilitate the search for such an accommodation. Thus in determining whether the duty of accommodation has been fulfilled the conduct of the complainant must be considered.

…

The other aspect of this duty is the obligation to accept reasonable accommodation… The complainant cannot expect a perfect solution.

[27] The Alberta Court of Appeal stated in Callan v Suncor Inc.[9] that a complainant “is not entitled to dictate the accommodation he or she will accept” and that “[t]here is no duty of instant or perfect accommodation, only reasonable accommodation.”

[28] As Chief Oviatt stated in RS obo CS v Edmonton School Division (RS)[10] in respect to the above decisions:

These decisions bear on the Complaint. The respondent had a duty to arrange the complainant’s learning environment in a way that he could meaningfully access general education. It also had a duty to reasonably accommodate his disabilities to the point of undue hardship. Undue hardship is a high threshold that places a significant obligation on the service provider. At the same time, all parties must participate and cooperate in the accommodation process. Ultimately, the respondent was best suited to determine how to reasonably accommodate the complainant in light of its operations, and the complainant’s parents had a duty to accept reasonable, not perfect, accommodation.

[30] In RS, the parents raised complaints in respect to the provision of safe spaces, speech supports, and a one-on-one educational assistant, among other forms of requested accommodations; which are also issues raised in the Complaint. In RS, the Tribunal determined that:

The respondent was obliged to provide reasonable accommodation to the complainant to ensure he had access to general education, and it was entitled to inform its decision using all available information. The physician’s March 2022 medical recommendation was undoubtedly one piece of that information. So was the complainant’s behaviour at school and the respondent’s ability to meet the same objectives by using a classroom educational assistant who prioritized the complainant’s needs. The respondent was entitled to apply its expertise in education to determine a reasonable level of support.

[31] Finally, in Moore, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that “a margin of deference is…owed to governments and administrators in implementing [education policy].”

[35] There is no information in the records indicating the respondent has failed to provide the support indicated in the January 4, 2024, report to DF. Nor is there any information suggesting any available resources were withheld or that the respondent failed to reasonably accommodate DF considering its operations. Rather, the records include hundreds of pages of correspondence confirming accommodation steps being taken by the School, Student Support and Safety Plan documents from September and October 2024 setting out plans for how School staff will assist DF, and a Learning Plan from October 2024 derived from specialist recommendations.

[36] In more general terms, it is not sufficient for a complainant to demonstrate that there is a program or treatment that would be beneficial that has not been provided by a school for the Tribunal to find that a respondent school board has violated the Act. This would run counter to the principle outlined in Moore that school boards should be provided some deference in how they meet their obligation to provide meaningful access to education.[13]

[37] While it is clear from the materials that the complainant’s parents have been dissatisfied with the respondent’s accommodation efforts for some time, the record supports a robust, collaborative approach to accommodation that, although it could be argued was not perfect, reasonably accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship. Prior to the Complaint being filed, and afterwards, hundreds of emails were exchanged between the parties, and many meetings held, to develop, implement, and adapt accommodation plans for DF.

[38] Therefore, I find the Complaint has no reasonable prospect of success under section 4 of the Act.

*******

This complaint did not proceed to a hearing, and it was dismissed.

One of thing that I know is going to stick out to people reading this is “the respondent was best suited to determine how to reasonably accommodate the complainant in light of its operations, “

One thing to keep in mind is that resources must be distributed equitably. Whatever funding the government gets, and how they decide to organize their operations, are they doing so in an equitable manner?

Parents take Ministry to Court – Win for Equitable Education

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

There is a zone.

Not getting access, barriers	Getting Access “Reasonable Accommodation”	Ideal Accommodation
Discrimination, cannot be justified.	Having “a ramp” – barrier is removed, it doesn’t promise a certain level of demonstrated ability via grades, just access. An opportunity.	Dismissed complaint if parents are expecting ideal and refuse to accept a reasonable accommodation.

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

[110] …. 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.

[120] …..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……

Even if they can argue that their decisions aren’t discriminatory, you can still appeal a decision under Section 11 if you don’t agree with it and you think it is harming your child.

Not a single person has wide-sweeping rights under the Human Rights Code or the Charter. It is how your rights are defined, and that is defined in common law. Created by tribunal decisions and courts.

The duty to accommodate is our strongest form of advocacy, but there is a ceiling. It’s not unlimited. It can bring your child up to reasonable accommodations and barriers removed. It may not be the educational experience you wish for them. It doesn’t mean that your kids won’t experience negative experiences or that it won’t be hard. It doesn’t mean they wont experience harm from the education system as a whole.

We need to advocate through multiple pathways, have multiple teams of people in various roles and positions, all advocating for systemic changes. Laws need to be applied. It takes people and organizations to do that. Our education isn’t operating to the fullest it can in implementing human rights for children with disabilities. But it will only bring us up to “reasonable”. If we want our ideal, we need other forms of advocacy and relationship building to bring us the rest of the way.

Here are systemic blogs you may find interesting.

Advocating for Systemic Change
Complaints are the Ultimate Protest
Systemic Imperfection
Who does Society care about?
Why Can’t we Just Sue the Government?
Systemic Impacts of Scarcity in Education

June 15, 2026

Dear Parent/Caregiver,

Here is what I would like to tell every new parent of a disabled/neurodivergent child entering the school system. I learned this the hard way. Hoping to pave a path so it’s easier for those who follow.

*******

You are going to be entering the school system and advocacy will be required.

How the school system responds to you, as a whole, is not personal. They are not peering into your soul and basing their response on what they see. Even if they really like you, it wont change their response. They will protect themselves no matter what, first.

School districts speak a different language. The language of liability. The language of ableism, racism, and patriarchy. They are assessing you based on risk. How risky of disruption or expensive are you going to be?

There is nothing wrong with you. You haven’t done anything wrong. This is not your fault.

The lens through which they evaluate and come to a conclusion about your child is not your shame to carry. It is theirs.

You are dealing with a colonial system. This is a machine that has been operating for a very long time. The machine thinks it is successful and wants to keep going.

When people gaslight you, try to control you, ignore you, and/or silence you, this is an example of the colonial machine. The machine has different priorities. Stability, predictability, risk-management, union contracts, power and control, etc. If the system were a person, we would describe them as narcissistic using coercive control.

If you are someone who has experienced abuse and trauma, this will be especially triggering.

However you cope with this, it is not your shame to carry.

However you learn to navigate K-12 education, please don’t internalize their behaviour towards you as a reflection of your own value.

How they behave is a reflection of the machine, and it has nothing to do with you.

How the machine grinds and turns the wheels is not a reflection of all who personally works within it. There are fabulous caring people in education. Some people help grease the wheel more than others. Some are completely oblivious to it. Others just think, this is how things work and defend the system. If you are in the school system long enough, you will meet wolves in sheep clothing. Intentional or not.

Being able to identify what is a reflection of the machine, can save your mental health and protect your emotional capacity when you advocate.

This is a chess game. There are rules. Learn to play the chess game and it will help you advance. Get the most of what you can for your child and their education while staying afloat.

There is hope.

You will know when you are not getting what your child is entitled to, where to focus your energy, or when it is time to leave. Knowledge is power.

You belong to a community, whether you have found us yet or not. Your people are out there. There are more people advocating for your child than you may realize. Movement has been occurring. The machine doesn’t want you to recognize those. So, we remind ourselves.

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

******

More blogs on the school system:

Liability in Education
School Emergencies
Understanding Systemic Change