Tag: #BCHumanRightsTribunal

Posted on

What is Reasonable? – Duty to Accommodate

A lot of human rights decisions from tribunals will focus on whether the school’s response and decision making was reasonable. Where the accommodations reasonable? Was the delay reasonable? Did they try and mitigate the harm? Was that reasonable?

Given what they knew at the time about the child’s disability-related needs, did they make a reasonable decision? It doesn’t need to be the perfect decision, just reasonable. Can they justify it?

When it comes to decision making, in order for it to be administratively fair, they need to explain to you the decision. According to Ombudsperson, you have the right to receive a decision, “Fairness is also about providing clear and meaningful reasons for decisions so the person affected can understand what process your organization followed and how it came to the decision it did.”

If schools are justifying their accommodations as reasonable, it is only fair that they explain why they justify those accommodations. There justification has to meet a specific standard. (See below)

Tribunal decisions have already clearly stated that we don’t get to pick what accommodations are provided to our child, we are on a consultation basis.

Leaving a student to suffer disability-related impacts without accommodations, was not seen as reasonable when they were aware. They couldn’t justify it. If they can’t justify it based on fact and evidence, they are in trouble. It can be discrimination.

Let’s look at some cases and see what they say. I will discuss more below once you read through the cases I have selected with key take aways at the end of the blog. Knowing and understanding this, how can we tailor our advocacy? We can use this to make it work for us, and push them on this. Push them to make their decisions make sense. Justify it as reasonable. They can’t do that? Then we can push the line and move it.

CASE ONE

An example of what is unreasonable:

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

[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.

(Summary: school knew she was struggling, knew she had a disability, and that her struggling was connected to school. They didn’t do anything about figuring out if she needed any accommodations. Not a reasonable response.)

*********

CASE TWO

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

[112] Accommodation requires a reasonable, not a perfect solution: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 SCR 970 [Renaud]. While there may have been other approaches available to the District, this does not necessarily render the one taken unreasonable. What is reasonable and what constitutes undue hardship is fact specific and will turn on the specific circumstances of a particular case: Renaud.

(Summary: You don’t get your perfect or ideal accommodation, only an accommodation that achieves the goal of equity. It will be very case-by-case what that looks like. Not the same for every person.)

********

CASE THREE

Kahn v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2019 HRTO 1137 (CanLII)

[260]           In rejecting the Loop of School plan, Ms. Kahn failed in her obligation to co-operate in the accommodation process. In so finding, I note that parents do not have the right to dictate the accommodations which their children will be provided with to access education. While parents do have the right to provide input as part of the accommodation process – which Ms. Kahn did in this case – they must accept reasonable accommodations offered by the school board. See UM v. York Region District School Board, 2017 HRTO 1718; Fisher.

(Summary: School educators determine what the accommodations should be. If you don’t help to facilitate this and give them a chance to see if it works, you wont be able to complain later. You complaint could be dismissed.)

********

CASE FOUR

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

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

This case had the court assess their reasonableness in their response and they outlined the reasonableness test.

THE STANDARD OF REVIEW

[10]      The standard of review to be applied when the merits of an administrative decision are challenged is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at para. 16).  None of the parties suggested that the Legislature intended a different standard or that the rule of law requires the standard of correctness be applied.  (Vavilov at para. 17)

[11]      In conducting a reasonableness review, a court must consider the outcome of the administrative decision in light of its underlying rationale in order to ensure that the decision as a whole is transparent, intelligible and justified.  What distinguishes a reasonableness review from a correctness review is that the court conducting a reasonableness review must focus on the decision the administrative decision-maker actually made, including the justification offered for it, and not on the conclusion the court itself would have reached in the administrative decision-maker’s place.  (Vavilov at para. 15; see also para. 83)

[12]      Other principles which guide a reasonableness review are:

•         A decision is unreasonable if there is a failure of rationality internal to the reviewing process or where the decision is untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints (Vavilov at para 101);

•         A decision must be based on reasoning that is both rational and logical (Vavilov at para. 102);

•         A reasonable decision is one that is justified in light of the facts; the reasonableness of a decision may be jeopardized where the decision-maker has fundamentally misconstrued or failed to account for evidence before it (Vavilov at para. 126);

•         A decision-maker’s reasons must meaningfully account for the central issue and concerns raised by the parties.  Where a decision-maker fails to meaningfully grapple with key issues or central arguments raised by the parties, that may result in the decision being unreasonable (Vavilov at paras. 127-128).

[30]      In my view, the Report is a fulsome consideration of how the Division considered and accommodated the learning disabilities of Ms. Wells’ son.  It is “transparent, intelligent and justified”.  The Investigator understood Ms. Wells’ concerns and considered the evidence with those concerns in mind.  She acknowledged the differences between Ms. Wells and the Division with respect to the son’s learning challenges and reasonably concluded that the Division would be in the best position to determine how to accommodate those challenges, taking into account the available assessments.

[31]      I agree that there was ample evidence of extensive and reasonable efforts by the Division to accommodate the son’s needs, notwithstanding that the applicant did not agree with them.  Dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Division do not amount to discrimination.

[32]      In my opinion, the Report and the decision to dismiss the Complaint is transparent, intelligent and justified.

[33]      The application is dismissed, with costs.

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

Professionals have a zone of reasonableness. Their decisions don’t need to be perfect, but there is a standard for reasonableness.

Even with the Teacher’s Regulation Branch, their behaviour has to be a “marked departure” from the Teachers Standards. It has to be unreasonable based on their professional expectations.

So let’s review.

If you feel the accommodations are not reasonable and your child is still not equitably accessing their education…remember they need to remove barriers…. then the school needs to justify their decision making to you in order for it to be possible that it is reasonable and administratively fair.

Their explanation needs to be:

  • Transparent
  • Intelligiable
  • Based on fact and evidence
  • Rational and logical
  • Connect to the key concerns

What can you do?

  • Explain the harm you are witnessing. You are the one best to discuss your child and their needs. They get the final decision, but they are required to meaningful consult with you.
    .
  • You will need to communicate need to them (in an email) so they don’t claim hindsight later on. You don’t want them to try and claim they made a reasonable decision at the time based on what they knew.
    .
  • You want to trigger meaningful inquiry by expressing the harm you are witnessing and linking it to school.
    .

MEANINGFUL INQUIRY – MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION – DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT



The duty to accommodate requires collaboration. Both parties have responsibilities in the process. Advocating for your child is part of the process. If you refuse to collaborate they can claim that you “frustrated” the collaboration process and they made a reasonable decision based on the information they knew at the time. They still have a requirement to accommodate your child whether you are involved in advocacy or not.(1) If you don’t want to be consulted you don’t need to be. They will just make their “reasonable” decision with the information they had at the time, minus any input from you.

*** The duty to accommodate is a process grounded in legally protected rights. This is not a perfect system. It is the most powerful form of advocacy we have, as it forces the schools to do things and explain things that no other system can. Parents experience more success advocating for their kids using a human rights lens. Even with Ombudsperson, it’s a recommendation, not an enforcement.

Push them to justify their behaviour, their decisions through the lens of reasonableness. When they can’t do that, you know you have room to push for further supports. Always come back to the discrimination test. Can you prove harm? Yes? Then keep going.

Keep in mind, you can appeal a decision or an absent of a decision to the School Board called a Section 11 appeal.

I don’t want to tone police, you do you, but when you ask them to justify their decision making, I wouldn’t suggest you use those words. Seeking clarification….. or can you please explain ___ to me so I understand better…
No one is going to fault you for wanting to understand someone’s decision making related to your child’s accommodations.

Having them justify their decision making,
or NOT being able to justify it
can be very helpful with your advocacy and evidence collecting.

Good luck advocates!

Here are some further blogs that expand on concepts I discussed above.

1. Hindsight

2. Duty to accomodate

3. Meaningful Inquiry

4. Meaningful consultation & A Guide to Meaningful Consultation

5. Section 11 appeal

(1) – They have the duty to accommodate your child whether you are involved or not.

L.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1622 (CanLII)


(c)      School boards have an obligation under the Education Act to provide appropriate special education placements, programs and services to their exceptional students. Parental conduct or lack of parental authority cannot be used as a justification for not meeting an exceptional student’s needs; and

(d)      I agree with the decision in R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, (R.B./Keewatin) 2013 HRTO 1436, an HRTO decision cited by both parties in this case, at para 265, that a parent’s “fierce advocacy” for his or her child must not and cannot prevent a school board from accommodating the child’s needs to the point of undue hardship.

Posted on

This is an Emergency!! Serious School Incidents

Not all education issues are sudden, turn into a panic, flip your life upside down or it’s an emergency that needs to get resolved right now. Some issues are slow and build over time.

This blog is about emergencies. The sudden ones.

If shit hits the fan fast, this is the go-to page.

Some people find my site and contact me because other people are telling them, “You have got to talk to Kim!!” So, if there is a page you want to pass along to another parent in need, here it is.

Emergencies are different territories.

What is the district thinking?

If this is an emergency situation after an incident, you will not be the only one realizing that this is a big deal and it could snowball into something so much worse. Trust me. The district knows too. They are NOT going to want to show it on their face or in their emails that they are aware of how bad this is. At least not until they meet with you. They are going to be curious and wonder:

  • How do you feel?
  • How mad are you?
  • Are you going to be controllable or are you flying off the charts?
  • Do you know your rights?
  • Will you even mention a legal process?
  • Are you going to threaten the media?
  • Will you call the police?
  • Will you be consulting with a lawyer?
  • They will be assessing you – do we think this person has the resources/capacity to make this painful for us?
    .

They want to get into your head.

Why?

BECAUSE YOUR REACTION WILL TELL THEM EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED TO DO.

Their goal is to…

  1. Keep you satisfied enough, but not give or do too much.
  2. Keep this internal and as quiet as possible. They want to be able to control it.
  3. Have as little impact on staff as possible. (They have unions to deal with)
  4. Not have any formal complaints be filed. (They want to know how expensive this will get)
  5. If this ends in a settlement, it is very normal to have a settlement agreement include a release and a non-disclosure agreement. (You don’t necessarily have to sign the NDA part.)
    .

Their liability processes have kicked into place. They have notified the School Protection Plan and they are waiting to see if you make a big deal out of this, and if you do, what are you going to do? To read more about how schools operate from a liability framework, read my Liability in Schools page.

They may be straight with you and ask you not to go to the media or file a complaint. They will reassure you that this will be taken care of, and your child will be supported.

They may offer you an external investigation and tell you that this will be investigated. (Their investigation will not be to find the truth and provide you with this information, it will be to reduce their liability.)

You may hear that staff are on a leave.

You will notice that your child is not on their list. They show up buried in #1. Keeping you satisfied. It absolutely kills parents to realize that schools actually aren’t focused on the best interest of your child in these situations; they are focused on themselves. You can use this to get what your child needs.

So, you may find yourself in this horrible situation. You can’t even process what has occurred. You may be at a hospital. You may have MFCD calling you. You could have the police contact you. Your child is traumatized and refusing to go back to school, and you are still in shock trying to process it all. The severity of all of this will differ. The end result is still the same. Trust has been broken and your child is refusing to go back, and you aren’t sure if you can even send them back after this. You have no idea how you are going to manage work when everything has just exploded.

So, what is your action plan in all of this?

I will break this down into themes and then put all of this into a timeline of steps at the end.

Media

I know you are ragging mad right now, but I do encourage you to give yourself 48 hours before calling the media. Some parents have had success in reversing field trip decisions or exposing exclusion. In terms of stories from a “grab the publics attention” kind of stories, those are small potatoes. This emergency situation is so bad, it’s in a different category. A few things to know about the media from experience.

  1. You never know what will take off. If your emergency is shocking, it could spread across the country very fast. You don’t know what will trigger people and all of a sudden you and your child are national news. Think 10 years ahead, will your child want this story in the news about them? (A human rights decision win involving a high school student showed up in over 60 media outlets across Canada and went international)
  2. You never will know exactly what will be written and what parts of your interview the journalist will pull out of your conversation. It will be a surprise, and I always find it very interesting to find out what parts have been selected and what has been left out. You won’t have control over the narrative.
  3. You cannot undo what is written in the media. Once its out there, it can take on a life of its own and you won’t have any control over it. Social media is wild. Years from now, when your child is an adult, they may Google the article and read all the comments, which some are going to be horrific.
    .

You may want to keep this in your back pocket and just know this is a possibility. But please, don’t make this decision when you’re mad. This could be used as leverage. You may feel that society needs to know about this. Finding the right reporter will be important. Please see my IN THE MEDIA page for reporter suggestions. You can also see what kinds of issues parents have taken to the media before. A lot of parents also feel that their issues are newsworthy, only to find out that reporters don’t want to touch the subject. Just because you feel that you can take it the media doesn’t mean the media will want to take it from you. Some subjects they won’t want to touch with a ten-foot pole, and sometimes the current news is just so horrific that it’s bad timing and they don’t think it’s enough of a story. I am aware of a couple of families who were shocked to find out that reporters didn’t want to publish their story.

External Investigator

The Superintendent may tell you they are going to have an External Investigator come and they will investigate everything and look into everything. These external investigators are mostly previous senior district administrators. A lot of them are retired Superintendents etc. A lot of people know each other from previous work and organizations. Some people have found them to be very biased.

Let me be clear.

This investigation is fully for them, and has nothing to do with you. This is for liability reasons. They can also use this as a way to get rid of staff they don’t want. If staff are a liability to them, they have launched into “constructive dismissal” techniques to drive them out or used investigation results to fire them. This is also something they can tell the Board of Education and/or the Ministry of Education that makes them look like they are taking care of things.

Doesn’t mean the investigation will be bad for you and not beneficial, but they are NOT going to investigate and then invite you into a meeting and tell you EVERYTHING that has occurred.

Here are some things you will hear.

  1. They will not be able to tell you anything about the staff, and they will state the reason is for privacy reasons. They won’t tell you what information they found out. They may tell you the staff are on a leave, but beyond that, the information will be VERY little.
  2. They will use this as a way to soothe you. This is the pacifier they will use in hopes you calm down.
  3. They will offer you an interview. (They want to know ALLLL the details, and everything you know and feel. They don’t want any surprises.) This isn’t necessarily bad. Just know that everything you are telling the investigator, you might as well be sitting in front of the Superintendent and their lawyers. But, the good thing about telling them what your child is experiencing is that they can’t claim HINDSIGHT. If they know your child is struggling, they have the responsibility to figure out how to remove the barriers. Meaningful Inquiry.
  4. This process also buys them time and delays the end result. They will tell you they can’t do anything until the investigation is over. The delay they hope will give you time to calm down and you will not be in fight mode. It also gives them time to think and have conversations with people about what on earth they are going to do. They are hoping you will expect less as time goes on.
    .

Something you may want to ask:

  1. When you are done with the investigation, will you consider if new administrator procedures or policy needs to develop to prevent this from happening to someone else?
  2. Will there be training for staff?
  3. Will you be reporting staff to the TRB?
  4. Will you be putting a Letter of Direction in the school employees’ file?
    .

Demand Letter or Filing Complaints

Now this is something you may want to think about.

In addition to the demand letter option, you can always look into filing a lot of complaints, depending on what has happened. To review your options, please see my Overview of the Complaint System. They don’t want you filing complaints. So you can use it.

Think about what you want for your kid. What barriers will they need to get back into school?

  • A new school?
  • A different teacher? Different EA?
  • Moved to a different classroom?
  • More EA supports/accommodations?
  • A plan for bully prevention – a safety person? To keep their cell phone on them?
  • A reintegration plan?
  • Counselling?
    .

NOW IS YOUR TIME TO ADVOCATE!!

They need to make things right by your child. They will never be able to undo what happened. They can’t just wave their arms around and the shock and trauma is gone. However, they should absolutely not be putting up any barriers to get your child back into school. The statement, “we don’t do that here” should not be coming out of their mouth.

They need to do everything in their power to remove the barriers, or deal with formal complaints.

You can use the complaints as a motivating factor. You may not want to file right away, as if they don’t remove the barriers you will have more to write in your complaint. You have one year to file a human rights complaint. There isn’t a time limit from the Teacher’s Regulation Branch (TRB). You can file a TRB complaint on teachers, Principals, and even the Superintendent. You may want to see how things unfold in the next few months before you file you anything.

You could send a demand letter, outlining everything you want. With a settlement amount. Just know, that you will be signing a release to not file any future complaints and they will want you to sign some version of a non-disclosure agreement/confidentiality agreement. For them this will close and end the issue.

The demand letter could be the fastest route to get you what you want. You may need settlement money to get your child counselling or other professional supports ASAP. You may want specific commitments and promises from the district in a written contract. Human rights complaints, even with fast-tracking, can take a couple of months to get into a mediation meeting.

Demand letters are an option. I know several parents who have been successful. Both public and independent schools. You can have a lawyer send a demand letter, or you can send one yourself.

*** Keep in mind no matter what the incident, it will need to be connected to a protected ground for the human rights complaint.

Contacting a Lawyer

I know meeting with a lawyer sounds like a big deal. It is. I will NEVER forget the moment I walked into a lawyer’s office for a consultation. The office looked like something out of a movie. I was offered 5 different types of water. I didn’t even know 5 types of water existed. Geez, as long as it doesn’t come from the toilet, I am good! There is just something about meeting with a lawyer and talking about your kids’ school that just makes you want to sob and wonder WTF is going on here. What planet am I on???

The money you spend on a lawyer could be sooo worth it in the long run. You are getting legal advice. There aren’t any missing blind spots. They can write up your demand letter or human rights complaint for you. They may think of things or be aware of things that you haven’t even thought about.

They can do the labour that parents find keeps them afloat. You can focus on your kid and the lawyer can deal with the school.

I have a lawyer on the list that I refer out to. I have never met this person. I have never talked to this person in any form of communication. There are no benefits coming to me at all when I make this referral. I have heard such positive feedback from parents that this is the law firm I pass along to everyone who wants a specialized education lawyer referral. There aren’t many who specialize in this field, and he is one of them. Here it is:


Vancouver Law Firm | Kesari Law Corporation

For a list of free legal consultation services, here is my list. Some parents have found pro bono lawyers who are willing to help.

Contacting the Ministry of Education

For public schools – the Ministry typically doesn’t respond to individual issues, but when you have issues that involve a group of children, then they respond. Action happens. They just won’t tell you about it. If nothing else, you leave a paper trail and documentation.

For independent schools – they have an independent investigator at the Ministry of Education. If your emergency reveals issues at the school that harm other kids as well, you may be able to trigger an investigation. If nothing else, you leave a paper trail and documentation.

I encourage people to tell the Ministry and you can notify the Superintendent that you are doing that. They aren’t going to like it. So, you can use that in your favor as well, if you like. Sometimes school districts need a little nudge. Or it can bring you some peace knowing that other people are aware.

Appealing a Decision

Both public and independent schools have appeal processes.

For public schools its called Section 11 under the School Act.

For independent schools, they will have their own process you will need to ask about. However persuasive they may be that they don’t have one, they need to have one, they should have one. The Ministry of Education will tell you to go that route.

Contacting the Board of Education

Each Trustee is responsible for a zone in your district. They are elected as a method of accountability and oversight for the district. Contacting them and letting them know what is going on is something you may want to consider. It will make the district administration sit up straighter when they know the Board is aware.

*******

ok, so we have now arrived at the timeline.

An emergency happens. Everything explodes. Now what?

Steps to Take

*** Advocacy in emergency situations can be similar to slow-burn situations because we still need to be focusing on our child’s disability-related needs and removing barriers. Children have a right to feel physically and psychologically safe at school. Duty to accommodate still applies.

The first step is going to feel awful, but it is an absolute must to consider.

  1. First and foremost, take care of your kid. (This isn’t the awful part.) Their needs are the priority right now. Have the conversations with the hospital staff, police, MFCD, or anyone else that you need to be having. AND HERE IS THE YUCKY PART. While you are doing this, think documentation. You are going to need evidence that your child felt as horrible as they did. You will want to take pictures of their injuries at their worst. Not day 5 of healing. You may want to take videos of what is transpiring. It may feel like you shouldn’t have your detective hat on while you are trying to take care of your kid, then give the task to someone else who is with you. The more evidence you have, documentation for ALLLL of the processes and interactions with the school, the stronger of a position you will be in to advocate for your kid, for barriers to be removed, and for a possible settlement for them. If you show up to the school and your 7-year-old is in handcuffs. You need to record them screaming.
  2. Reach out for help. Consider contacting a lawyer and ask for an urgent consultation. You need someone, a support person, to just process your own emotions and be able to think about what you need to be doing. Getting a counsellor may be very helpful, AND you will be documenting your own harm, as you may also want to file a human rights complaint on your own behalf. #3 is also at the same time as #2.
  3. Go to the top, immediately. Typically, there is a chain of command you have to climb in order to get to the next person. In these emergency situations. Screw it. Send an email to the Superintendent and Secretary-Treasurer, and ask for communication/meeting as soon as possible. You can cc: the Director of Learning, the District Learning Support person, your child’s principal. Whomever you want. Give them a timeline of 2 days to respond. 24 hours if you want to in some cases. If you don’t get a response, go to the School Board, and the Ministry. The Superintendent will want to speak to the staff with the most direct knowledge of what happened first, before they speak to you. Let them know that this is extremely urgent and time-sensitive. There is a chance that they have already heard about the incident, and they are expecting an email.
  4. When you meet with them, they will be thinking about all the points I mentioned above. How mad are you? Do you know your rights? They will then need to go back and discuss and get back to you. They will be reassuring you that they will take care of this and ask that you don’t do anything yet until you meet again. They will want to keep this internal, controllable and as quiet as possible. You want them to know that what happened is serious and you are not a doormat, without necessarily saying that. You need them to do what they can to support your child. But you don’t want to come off as uncontrollable or unhinged. You still need them. Collaborating with them in the best interest of your child will help you all move on as soon as possible. But if you don’t make a fuss or ask for things, they aren’t going to offer it.
  5. Over the next chunk of time, email them back and express requests as your child needs them as they transition back into school. Be as persistent and consistent as you need to be to get your kids needs met. You have your power of the possibility of formal complaints; they have their own power as they control your child’s education. As much as your instincts are telling you to gut them like a fish, you are so mad, if there is a win-win here for everyone, I would suggest you try to find it. Get your kid what they need and move on in your life. If you are going to sign a settlement, make sure you are happy with it, because once it’s signed, it’s a done deal. There are no do-overs. If they aren’t giving your kid what they need, you have complaint options that will force them to deal with this. (unless you have already signed a release) Some administrators don’t have a lot of experience in this, and they have no idea the lengths a parent will go to for their child, and so many people are propelled forward wanting to make sure there are safeguards in place for other children to not experience something like this either. Sometimes things are just so bad, that parents feel compelled to file complaints and make this public; otherwise, it feels like we are complicit. This is a personal decision and completely dependent on your family and the context of the situation. Do what you need to do for your own peace, either way.
  6. You will want to be fully aware of gathering documentation. My blogs on documentation are here on my blog list.
  7. Also, be aware that depending on what happens, you may be able to file a human rights complaint under Family Status for you as well. For more info on this, here is my Family Status page.
    .

Your Employment

Depending on the level and context of the emergency, some people have been able to take sick days, or some people have taken a leave of absence. When your child refuses to go back to school, all of a sudden, you are left scrambling.

Your employer has the duty to accommodate you too, under Family Status. You need to officially request accommodations from your work. Just don’t quit. If you have concerns about your employment, it may be worth it for you to consult a lawyer. (See referral above).

Sustain your Advocacy

This isn’t going to be easy, and it will probably push you past your comfort zone and up to the limits of your capacity.

In amongst all of the chaos, if you don’t think of yourself and your own needs, you will not be doing anyone, including your child, any favours.

You will need your own support. Ask for help.

Here is my school advocacy help directory list.

Finally, I wish you all the best. I’d love to say that school emergencies are rare and far and few between. I have had enough parents contact me over this topic, both public and independent, that I realized there was a need for this page. If you are someone who is aware of another parent in need, please do share.

Posted on

Policy Change/Training in Tribunal Decision?

This is very interesting!!

This person won their case in a hearing! Woohoo!

Employee R v. B.H. Allen Building Centre Ltd. dba RONA and others, 2026 BCHRT 105

This part I haven’t seen before in a decision.

*******

[76]           Employee R did not expand on his request with respect to policy changes or training during the hearing or in his closing submissions, and no evidence was presented by either party with respect to this matter. I find there is insufficient information before me to make any specific order in this regard, and I decline to do so.

********

If you are a parent and you want professional development training or policy to come out of your hearing order, if you win, you’d better ask for it! This is something to think about for anyone who wants to take their case to a hearing. You may want to add items like this in your closing submissions, just in case you win.

The fact that this is possible is very interesting!

Always ask, as you navigate the system. You never know what could happen.

For those interested in what the case is all about:

[1]               Employee R is a gay man who sought part-time employment at RONA to supplement his income during the COVID-19 pandemic. He was subjected to a homophobic slur at work by a colleague and filed a complaint with his employer in which he expressed concern about his safety. Subsequently, Employee R’s regular shift was cancelled and then he was terminated.

ORDER

[77]           I have found that the Respondents discriminated against Employee R in his employment based on his sexual orientation, in violation of s. 13 of the Code. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

a.    I declare that the Respondents’ conduct contravened s. 13 of the Code: s. 37(2)(b).

b.    I order the Respondents to cease the contravention and refrain from committing the same or similar contraventions: Code, s. 37(2)(a).

c.     I order the Respondents to jointly pay Employee R the following:

                                                     i.          $877.50 as compensation for wages lost because of the discrimination: Code, s. 37(2)(d)(ii).

                                                   ii.          $10,000 as compensation for injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect: Code, s. 37(2)(d)(iii).

d.    Pre and post judgement interest based on the rates set out in the Court Order Interest Act.

Posted on

BC HRT – You need evidence. Hearsay from your child will not be enough.

The term “hearsay” in this context is when kids come home and tell us things that happened at school that we didn’t witness ourselves.

Here is the heart of the issue. ———- When your child comes home and tells you what happened in school that day—– that in of itself is not evidence the tribunal will automatically accept as fact just on its own. You need evidence. The tribunal will assign little weight to hearsay evidence, compared to staff who can testify firsthand to what they witnessed.

This is going to be a source of frustration. I just want to acknowledge that.

Naturally, the first question is – how do I collect evidence when I am not even there at the school?

Good question.

This is the pickle you are in. You need to gather evidence in other ways. Or consider that your child could testify.

There was a recent BC Human Rights Tribunal decision posted, and it lays out how all of the mother’s allegations were not accepted without evidence. Some of the evidence provided from the school conflicted with her allegations. We have the burden to prove that our allegations meet the discrimination test first. Then, when we complete that, it falls to the school district to justify it, or prove the allegations are not true, with evidence.

Here is the case.

Child D (by Mother D) v. The School District, 2026 BCHRT 106

Each allegation was not accepted by the tribunal because there was no evidence to support the allegation and/or to link the harm to the protected ground – Indigenous Identity. I highly suggest you read the case in full to fully grasp what requirements are needed for the tribunal. Each allegation is clearly listed and explained. I would basically need to cut and paste the whole case here to give you the full context.

I am going to come back to this case later, because if you are a family struggling with family law court issues, there are aspects of this case that highlight the school’s interaction with that. Two parents had different perspectives and take on the child’s education experience. If you are struggling with this – this case will be of interest to you.

Here is another case that went all the way to a hearing and deals with the issue of hearsay from a child.

*******

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

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

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

[228]      In summary, none of these incidents amount to discrimination under the Code. The Mother made numerous allegations about the School District accepting the word of Caucasian students over that of her Child, but agreed in cross-examination, that she did not know the races of the other students involved. Contrary to her testimony, the students involved in the Second October 2015 Incident, April 2016 Incident, and November 2016 Incident were not Caucasian.

********

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

********

Depending on their age and ability, you may want to consider having your child be a witness. Here is a blog about having your child testify. Does my child need to testify?

Here is a case example of a teenager who testified.

******

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

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

******

Having your child testify will remove the issue of hearsay or double hearsay.

Also…document, document, document.

Because we are not there witnessing events, the more evidence we can have documented in emails, the better position we will be in to assess our complaint and the evidence we will need to prove our allegations.

Here are blogs on gathering evidence

Documentation
Improper Conduct – Hiding Disclosure – What documents to ask for
Why is Documentation so Important?
Evidence of Harm. Effective advocacy in Education
How to Gather Evidence

Remember, we have to prove the elements of the discrimination test. The burden falls on the person filing the complaint to provide evidence that these things occurred.

Broe v. School Board of Education

[57]           For the reasons that follow, I find that Ms. Broe has not met her burden of proving the elements of her case.

Discrimination Test

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

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

*******

I want you to be successful and prepared. The more you understand human rights law and how this get APPLIED and interpreted by the tribunal, the better possion you will be in to assess your case, what to ask for if you are seeking legal advice, and what steps you need to take now to either resolve your issues or make your case through a complaint.

Need help? Here is the list of people/organizations who may be able to help you.

Posted on

Life After K-12

This blog is about healing from K-12 public education.

It has been one full week since I announced I am taking a month break from both P.A.T.H and my Chair role at BCEdAccess.

It was exactly what I needed. My decision was fast. I was fighting the urge to delete my Facebook account. I was so desperate for an escape. Yet, it was hard to leave too and resist the urge to not rush back by day 2. I would have explained more about my sudden departure, but I truly didn’t have the words.

I have been operating at max capacity for a ridiculously long time. Too long. I needed to give myself permission to take the advocacy hat off. Even if for just a bit.

Why?

I have survived K-12 education. For 15 years of my life, my kids with invisible disabilities were in public school. Both graduated and went to their graduation ceremonies.

I have also survived 3 Human Rights Complaints (3 public-facing decisions – 1- Final decision from an 8-day hearing -5 years, many private decisions), 3 Ombudsperson BC complaints that lasted- 3 years, 4 OIPC complaints (1 public-facing Order – 2 years), 8 Teacher Regulation Branch complaints and an external school investigator hired by the district that lasted 2 FULL years.

My last child graduated in June of 2025. I was involved in litigation with the school district for over 5 years. Many years of internal advocacy before all of that. The third human rights complaint ended in a settlement in the fall of 2025.

Everything was now truly complete. It was all over. Then the crash of “fight mode” happened. My body felt different. The engine that was running in overdrive for so long was revving down. I felt bored and unfocused. Like….now what? Now what do I do? What do I think about? I had this space.

As the months unfolded, I felt I was running on empty anger fumes that were no longer being refueled by a dueling opponent.

I was dragging myself. The race was over. Everyone left and went home. Yet…..I was still there…running.

With everything done, I then spent a lot of time organizing all of my files. I had to do it in chunks. It was still too fresh to do it all at once. Saving or deleting thousands of school and lawyer emails. Sorting out which parts of the history of their complaints to create a binder to pass along to the kids. Their history. I was deleting hundreds and hundreds of school emails. Some of them I read and some of them I just couldn’t. Re-examining everything with a new lens. After years of clinging onto everything for potential litigation use, when I finally pressed the delete button, I felt like I was cutting off a limb. Trying to process everything with the intent of letting go.

Simultaneously, I was meeting with parents through P.A.T.H, and communicating with BCEdAccess families. Everything was blurred. It didn’t feel like K-12 ever ended.

I still found myself looking for the next fight. I needed to stop and remind myself, “Kim – it’s over! Your kids are fine!” Tears would well up, as I repeated this to myself while taking a much-needed deep, long breath.

It is true. It is over. And they are fine. Now. They weren’t always fine. But they ended up being fine because I used every external complaint system to apply pressure to the school district to ensure that they are fine. My kids got their needs met in those final years at school, finally, after years of harm and unmet needs.

Dealing with the psychological games from the school district triggered my childhood experiences that were pushed deep down. School employees will ignore you. They gaslight you. They blame you. They don’t believe you. They dismiss you. They delay you. They manipulate you. They flat-out lie to you. They use social pressure of knowing that people naturally want to be liked to “stay in line” and not cause a fuss. They use social embarrassment and shame as a weapon.

When you have a disability as well as your children, all of the systemic oppression and abuse you faced as a kid just all bubbles to the surface. It’s one thing when it’s you experiencing this, but to see your children now experiencing it….well, it is unbearable.

When I was a child, another classmate at school told me her parents had told her she was not allowed to play with me. I asked why. She said that it is because stuttering is contagious. I told her I don’t think it is. Her reply was, “Then how do you explain accents?” She went on and on about how her parents told her that people learn accents from being around others. Warned people that they should stay away from me or they would stutter too. Then she gathered everyone else up, and off they ran, leaving me to play by myself.

Growing up with a disability and facing social exclusion never leaves you. Children can be cruel. So can the adults. Growing up in the 80’s and 90’s with a stutter was brutal. I spent my childhood years trying to blend in with the wallpaper, as being seen was dangerous. Thanks to the stuttering community I found in my early adult years, I healed, felt what true forgiveness feels like and learned its ok to take up space.

My advocacy was in view of the district administration, the School Board of Trustees, lawyers and their support staff, insurance staff, the school staff, and every external complaint system employees that examined everything. I have counted 50+ people. Everything was on show for people to examine, scrutinize and form an opinion on all of my emails and emotional pleadings. What made it extra sticky was that I was a previous employee; some of these people I had previous social and employment connections with. I also started blogging on a website I created called Speaking up BC. Opening the door to expose my feelings and experiences with abelism and fighting the unfair system.

I already know what social exclusion feels like, and I know that I can survive it. So, when it came to taking the risk and sticking my neck out in front of an audience, I didn’t give a shit what people thought of me. I was willing to risk social consequences. You want to judge me, think bad things about me and not like me? Join the club. What can be looked at as a previous horrible experience from childhood can be turned into an advantage as an adult. I am free. I am not chained down by social expectations like a lot of people are. I have never fit in, and I am certainly not going to try to fit in now. So, whatever you think of me, it’s cool with me. I realized a long time ago that I have no control over how people view me. Let it go.

I have pushed back on every single wall this system tried to put in front of me, as they were constantly trying to change the maze. Walked over every “that’s not appropriate” and just kept filing another application for documents. Got amazing evidence! I have seen the dark shadows. The many gaps in this education system AND in the external complaint systems. I have seen good people do horrible things. I have seen good people be complicit bystanders. Observers who did absolutely butt-kiss nothing. I have seen educators in positions of authority over children prioritize administrative convenience and have placed children in harm’s way. I know things that would shock people. I had one external complaint system realize that they messed up my complaint. Six months of ignoring me, hoping I would go away, but I didn’t. There was no public announcement, but knowing they realized they made a mistake was comforting. Lessons learned. They, too, can learn where their gaps are.

Seeing what is behind the curtain of these systems and knowing how they really work is jarring and changes how you see life and people. I have seen people become destroyed by the systems. You aren’t just fighting the system. You are fighting trying to keep hold of yourself and not become someone else you don’t recognize or respect when you look in the mirror. I have seen desperation bring out the worst in people.

I am the type of person who has to understand all of the crevasses and all the little pieces to make sense of everything and move on. Otherwise, I will ruminate and be hooked on obsessively trying to figure it out. I needed to know and understand how on earth such a cluster fuck up could occur for so long under the watchful eyes of educators.

I have experienced a mixture of success and failure. My evolving motto as I moved through the system was to test and learn, and publicly expose, the decision-making of all of the systems as much as possible. I wanted to figure this out so that we could “fix” what happened to my kids so other families won’t experience the same thing. I wanted accountability. The idea that they were just pushing this under the rug and wanted it all to just go away like it was nothing enraged me. I feared the failures would just continue and never end. Lessons would never be learned. I was completely willing to fall flat on my face and feel absolutely naked under scrutiny. I didn’t care. I wanted what happened to be exposed and examined. You want to poke fingers at me and think I am emotional, great. Let’s talk about why!! Gather everybody around, like some great murder mystery plot reveal, and let’s. talk. about. why.

When trust is broken with schools, it can really mess with your mental health. There are the incidents and all of the events that broke our trust, and then there is the response from the school and district, and then again the response from their legal team. I am not just healing from one thing. There is the harm my children experienced, and then there are their responses to me and their liability processes.

I don’t regret going as far as I did. That hearing needed to happen. I would do it all over again in a heartbeat. I feel a deep sense of peace. I got the information I needed to get, I understand all of the puzzle pieces in the 1,000-piece puzzle. My kids are both doing great. They have survived, gained life skills, and are starting their adult lives. I got more than the accountability and understanding of the seriousness of what occurred than I was even expecting. Lessons were learned. I went to school amongst all of this to SFU and obtained a degree in Criminology and Legal Studies. The injustice was the catalyst that pushed me in this direction. I ended up with a meaningful career I never expected, a higher salary than working for the school districts that I left, and a whole new social network of friends and fellow advocates. But there were costs. Costs I was willing to live with. Because the alternative was not an option.

But back to the break.

I need time to reflect and acknowledge everything. To refill my cup and remember all of the goodness and incredible things that have happened. As well as all of the hardship. I wanted to heal. It will be over my dead body that I allow these people to break me. I was determined to not only create change, but to come out of this better than ever. I am ok with having scars, I’ll take them, but this needs to build me. This needs to be a launching pad and not the guillotine. I want to evolve in life.

In the fall of 2025, I started counselling to help myself process everything. Years of constant advocating for my kids in K-12 brought up a lot of my own shit. I do have to say, it would have been easier on myself if I had taken up counselling waaaaaayyy earlier.

When they say healing is not a direct straight line. No kidding! I would have times where I felt like I was free and weightless. A couple of days later, I am back to being angry and looking for a fight. Then I’d be back to being thankful for all of my experiences and how my quality of life in the end has increased. Then back to feeling that I never want to see anyone who works at the district ever again. And then the cycle continues. Counting my blessings. Then singing ABCDEFU by Gayle at the top of my lungs. Ask me how I am, and it will depend on the day. Healing is messy. All over the place. Always shifting when you think you are finally done.

I will be honest. I made mistakes. My advocacy wasn’t perfect. I was my own mountain at times. It wasn’t only them. I have gone back and reviewed previous emails, and I now see some attempts of them trying to bring this to an end. I honestly didn’t even process it. I look back on documents, and I swear what I was reading now wasn’t there then. I have no memory of reading that. But it was there. As the years unfolded, I saw everything as an attack more and more. They thought that they could end it whenever they felt like it was a good time to do so. They were too subtle and too late. When their attempts weren’t working, the lawyers went full speed ahead. A bull. Eyes on target. Set to destroy. I think they truly wanted to break me so I would shrivel up and disappear completely. Instead, I turned into a bull back. Two bulls in a room. Nothing left but stubborn will.

This break has already been exactly what I needed.

I am giving myself permission to focus on myself. This week I have vacation time off from work. I am really looking forward to some me time.

Listening to everyone navigate and share their stories on social media is triggering for me. It’s incredibly emotional. It sends me back in time, and I needed a break and separation from witnessing the trauma to smooth out all of the corners and come to a place of forgiveness. My peace needed to seep in deeper into my bones. Not just be in my head, but be in my heart.

This time off has felt like I was placing the period at the end of the sentence. Sealing the envelope. Closing the book. My children had their graduation ceremony. I needed something to signify my ending.

I have lovingly placed the K-12 education life experience on a bookshelf. I have forgiven myself for all the things that I didn’t know, but wish I had known at the time, and for all of the things I wish I did differently. I have forgiven all of the people involved for all of the things that they didn’t know at the time, and for all of the things that they wished they had done differently.

For the smaller group of people who intentionally and knowingly harmed my oldest child and me, and went ahead and did it anyway, my forgiveness is still fluid depending on the day and hasn’t solidified yet. One day, I hope to be rooting for you.

I had a wonderful person in my life when I was a teenager. She almost died in a car accident, and it severely altered her life. She fought to live and ended up on disability, lucky to be alive. She kept a picture of the totalled car in a picture frame on her wall right by the front door. The car looked so crumpled that you would think it just came out of the car crusher from a scrap yard. She was hit by a large transport truck that was speeding down the highway when it hit a patch of ice. I can’t believe any human being came out of the car alive. People would ask her why she had something so horrifying in a picture frame by her door. She would tell them, it reminds me that I survived that. I can survive anything.

Be proud of your own car crash and survival. Own it.

Healing takes more than just time. It takes focus and effort. It is a worthy goal.

To strip off the anger. To wipe away the disappointment in a system that is different from what I expected or wanted. To forgive people for not being perfect and not knowing everything, I think they should have already known. It’s a place of acceptance. I don’t need to like the system, but I accept the reality that we are all in. I don’t want to carry the heaviness and be angry for the rest of my life. Anger had served its purpose well. It was action. It was fuel. But now it is time to put it down. I don’t need it to fuel me anymore.

The ball of anger and disappointment never really goes away; it just feels different. Further off in the distance, sleeping somewhere. Not so close and alive. Demanding my attention.

Before I went on my break, I lost my words. Some would call it writer’s block. But it was more than that.

I have always been limitless in how much I could write. It flowed through me. I felt I had to try to pace myself so I wasn’t overwhelming people. But then, suddenly, the well dried up. I would lift my pen to write in my journal, or place my fingers over the keyboard to write a blog, and I just didn’t know what to say anymore. About anything. I would sit there staring at the wall. Just….nothing. I felt anxious. Something was off, but I didn’t know what. That’s when I knew. This isn’t good. I am finally beyond my limits. I have been taking care of everyone else and not enough of myself. I feared I was reaching burnout.

I know my cup is filling up again because I woke up one morning and just like that, my pen is moving, and I am back to writing. My words have returned. I don’t feel depleted anymore. I was an anchor who jumped over the boat, wishing to hide in the deep and dark parts of the water.

The human rights decision is a fraction of the whole story. The tip of the iceberg. The whole story isn’t just about discrimination. The Board and the district didn’t need to make all of the systemic changes they did. They went beyond the base minimum of fulfilling their own liability needs. Some of the signs of their work are public-facing, but unless you know what to look for, you won’t be able to connect the dots. The breadcrumb trail spans years. By the significant changes that have occurred, hard conversations have clearly taken place. Even though I have never signed an NDA, I will never parade the individual details of those involved for public gawking. Some people have suggested I write a book about all of this. I am not going to do that. I also had a journalist reach out to me from another province who was very interested in the backstory of my website and how and why all of this started. She couldn’t have been more eager to write a story. I declined the offer. Enough media attention has already occurred that I am beyond satisfied. For everyone who has been connected to this, we all should have the right for this to come to an end and move on with our lives. Advocacy and sharing knowledge about these educational issues can be done in a way that is respectful and humane. I don’t need to tear people to pieces in order to use what happened as a way to advance the system. I am very selective with the information I share about everything I have experienced, and do so with purpose. I am not a tell-all novel. Information for advocacy can be offered up for families’ consideration while still respecting our family and the district’s privacy. I firmly believe we all deserve a second chance. It doesn’t benefit society if people make a mistake and we forever write them off. We want society to show grace to our children and to us who don’t get things “right” the first time; we need to show grace back.

I fight so hard for others, for the same reasons many of you all fight so hard for your children and others. I have been where so many of you have been. I, too, have quit my job due to a lack of school support. I felt like I was going to have a mental breakdown dealing with the school. Years of sleepless nights. Anxiety through the roof. Wanting to rip my face off I just couldn’t stand it anymore. Nauseous – physically sick. Stress hives breaking out all over my back and chest. Leaving in the early mornings to walk on a treadmill at a gym – I would cry and try to process what email I should send next. Terrified the staff would find me annoying and take it out on my elementary-aged child. Who was already dealing with abuse from the school.

But the quiet and unplugging is essential. I have intentionally slowed down. Engaging in somatic therapy activities. Poured on the self-care activities I know that will work for me. I know some people cringe at the word self-care. It is so overused. But I wanted it. Needed it. And it is working.

By stepping away, I have my energy back.

I am refilling my cup. I am the only one responsible for refilling it, and I am the only one with the ability to do so.

I see the big things that indicate to me I am healing. My energy and writing are back. I also see the little things.

My favourite singer is Sarah McLauchlin. I love her music. I have been listening to her for years. During the tribunal process, my music preferences switched. I was always listening to fast, pumping take-over-the-world music. A couple of days after my break started, I was gravitating back to my Sarah music. By Day 6 it was all I was listening to for hours. Going through all of her albums.

World on Fire

“The world is on fire, it’s more than I can handle
I’ll tap into the water, try to bring my share
I’ll try to bring more, more than I can handle
Bring it to the table, bring what I am able”

Welcome back, Sarah. I have missed you.

I am at a place where I can make a decision. I could step away and never have anything to do with K-12 education ever again. Disappear off the grid. Or I could intentionally make the decision to come back. Previously, I felt like I was trapped in time. My children have moved on, but I was still stuck in the past.

But I don’t feel like that anymore. This break was me leaving. I found my way to the future.

I am intentionally deciding to come back. That intention makes everything feel different. It is not just a continuation.

I am not coming back as someone currently in K-12. Not as “we”. We aren’t in this together anymore. I was questioning whether I should be in the role of Chair or be doing this work if I were no longer in the same ocean, trying to keep afloat and not be swept away with the strong currents, along with everyone else. But I come to you all now as someone standing on the shoreline, on solid ground, throwing out the life preserver of lived experience to the next generation of change agents. Someone who went through it and came out on the other side still intact. I didn’t lose myself. If anything, I met myself.

It is day 7 of my break, and I am itching to come back. As much as I was ready to cut everything and run, the pendulum swung, and I am already on the other side. I am a little intense. It can be all or nothing with me. I am either ready to take over the world, or I am taping out on a beach somewhere, counting stars. Again, meeting myself.

I am still aiming to take the rest of the time to deepen and solidify all the progress so far. Or at least I am going to try. I do really want to force myself to take this time and use it. I am looking forward to being back on May 1st and reconnecting, and also meeting the new families seeking services and support through P.A.T.H and BCEdAccess. When the next runner comes up beside me to reach for the baton, I will warmly pass it off to the next Chair of BCEdAccess. P.A.T.H will continue to be an evidence-based lighthouse.

I love all the families that I have witnessed over the years, who are still trying to do the best they can for their kids and themselves in such a broken system. But also for the ones who have honoured that they need a break to refill their cups and heal. I love all the families whom I have never met and will never meet, but are still somewhere trying to stay afloat, swimming against the current. You are all in my heart.

Much love and solidarity to you all,
Kim, – From solid ground. xoxo

❤️

Posted on

The Tribunal Take on Witness Testimony

I find reading human rights decisions FASCINATING!!!

In this decision:

Castro Mosquera v. North Horizon Immigration Consulting Inc., 2026 BCHRT 61

The tribunal member goes into detail about how a tribunal member will interpret witness testimony!

*******

[15]           For all witness testimony, I start from the presumption that the witness is telling the truth: Hardychuk v. Johnstone, 2012 BCSC 1359 at para. 10. When making findings of fact, I determine which evidence is most plausible based on a balance of probabilities: Mr. S v. Cannae Holdings, 2018 BCHRT 47 at para. 12. When assessing which evidence is most plausible, I consider the credibility and reliability of the witness. I consider factors including the firmness of the witnesses’ memory, whether their evidence changed during cross-examination, whether the evidence seemed unreasonable, impossible, or unlikely, and whether they had a motive to lie: Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398, aff’d 2012 BCCA 296, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 392 (Q.L.) at para. 186. I also consider whether supporting or contradictory evidence exists, and whether a witness’ evidence is internally and externally consistent: Harder v. Tupas-Singh and another, 2022 BCHRT 50 at para. 6. Overall, I consider whether each witness’s evidence was in “harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions”: Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BCCA) at para. 11.

[16]           I can accept all, some, or none of a witness’ testimony, and I may attach different weight to different parts of a witness’ testimony: Meldrum v. Astro Ventures., 2013 BCHRT 144 at para. 4; Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275 at para. 18.

[17]           Overall, I am satisfied the witnesses testified truthfully to the best of their ability. There were several instances where Ms. Mosquera and Ms. Benkhalti gave conflicting evidence on significant issues. For the most part, I find that the conflicting evidence was the result of the misunderstanding between Ms. Mosquera and Ms. Benkhalti and not because their evidence was not credible or reliable. Further, memories surrounding certain events or conversations had understandably faded and some of the differences between the evidence of Ms. Mosquera and Ms. Benkhalti can be attributed to subjective interpretations and perceptions of the same incident.

*******

This person was self-represented and they wont their case. Even though the discrimination was due to a misunderstanding and it was not intended.

It’s a great reminder that discrimination is not about intent. You will not need to PROVE that they INTENDED to discriminate, just that they did.

Human Rights Code Section 2

*******

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

*******

[8]               For the reasons that follow, I find that North Horizon discriminated – albeit unintentionally – against Ms. Mosquera based on her sex and family status. I also find that North Horizon did not retaliate against her contrary to s. 43 of the Code.

*******

She is getting over $45,000 in compensation. Click the link above to read the order and read that case in full.

Here is the discrimination test, and the justification test.

Posted on

Reducing EA Support Hours = Discrimination

R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1436

This case is about the school district reducing a student’s Education Assistant (EA) support hours who was doing well with the EA support. The student originally had a full-time EA, and the district cut the time in half. The reduction in support hours led to an increase in “behaviour” that further led to exclusion.

The communication between the parent and the school was difficult, and they were banned from the school. The tribunal found that the district did not do enough to de-escalate the conflict.

The Human Rights Tribunal in Ontario found the school district discriminated. This case is what SOOOOOO many parents experience. It’s a long decision but a worthy one. I feel that many parents can print off this case and connect with what they are experiencing.

Human rights decisions in other provinces are not binding, BUT they are persuasive. So if the district tries to minimize the importance of the decision because it’s in Ontario, don’t believe them. They are just trying to do what they always do. Reduce, minimize, deny, deny. This case is from 2013. This is not “new” that parents advocacy cannot be used against them to justify the school district denying accommodations. Challenging communication does not release them of their legal duty to accommodate children with the disabilities to the point of undue hardship.

Here is another example, as I have outlined in Part 5 – Duty to Facilitate in the Duty to Accommodate series.

L.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1622

[77]        

(c)      School boards have an obligation under the Education Act to provide appropriate special education placements, programs and services to their exceptional students. Parental conduct or lack of parental authority cannot be used as a justification for not meeting an exceptional student’s needs; and

(d)      I agree with the decision in R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, (R.B./Keewatin) 2013 HRTO 1436, an HRTO decision cited by both parties in this case, at para 265, that a parent’s “fierce advocacy” for his or her child must not and cannot prevent a school board from accommodating the child’s needs to the point of undue hardship.

Okay lets get back to the 2013 case R.B v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board. There is a lot of history with this case and other decisions around it. But for this blog, lets focus on this decision.

The Human Rights Tribunal ordered:

********

[281]      The Tribunal orders the following;

a.   Payment by the respondent in the amount of $35,000.00 as monetary compensation for the injury to the applicant’s dignity, feelings and self-respect;

b.   R.B. will return to school in the 2013/2014 school year with a full-time shared EA in the classroom, speech/language support for 30 minutes per week and an appropriate behaviour management plan that has been agreed to by S.F. in consultation with R.B.’s treating specialists.

c.   S.F. is entitled to fully participate in the IPRC review meeting for the 2013/2014 school year and the development of R.B.’s IEP for this year;

d.   The trespass notice and communication ban issued in December 2011 is lifted.

********

This is what the complaint alleges in terms of the discrimination test.

*******

[218]     The applicant’s assertion that he was denied meaningful access to an education can be summarized as follows:

a.   Failure to provide EA support and learning strategies;

b.   Failure to provide appropriate behavioural strategies and to assess R.B.’s academic and behavioural regression in a timely way;

c.   Failure to provide appropriate educational programming during the withdrawal and exclusion.

[219]     In addition, the applicant argues he was reprised against in the following ways:

a.   The reduction of EA support in Grade 2 because of the advocacy of S.F.;

b.   R.B.’s exclusion from school on October 22, 2012;

c.   The communication ban.

*******

Here are some noteworthy paragraphs to highlight some areas of the decision to read more. There were some other details of the complaint that I haven’t pulled in there. It would just be too long. But this case is something that A LOT of families experience. I truly encourage you to take the time you need to read the case in full.

*******

[33]        On June 23, 2011, the Vice-Principal advised S.F. that there would be a half-time EA assigned to R.B.’s classroom the next school year at Open Roads Public School (“Open Roads”). Open Roads is a school that amalgamated Riverview and another school. The Vice-Principal advised S.F. that a reduction in Ministry of Education funding had significantly reduced the school’s EA support. She further advised that the school team was confident R.B. would do very well with half-time EA support because of his growth in independence and maturity and the progress he had made in Grade 1.

[98]        On October 22, 2012, R.B. was excluded from school by the school Principal for inappropriate behaviour including swearing, using profanity, spitting, yelling, cutting a child’s sweater, stomping on a child’s leg, throwing material and being non-compliant with his teacher, educational assistant, Vice-Principal and Principal. The Notice of Exclusion stated R.B.’s return to school was conditional upon the completion of a psychological assessment by the respondent’s school psychologist, Dr. Michael Stambrook, and the respondent being confident R.B.’s return would not compromise the physical and mental well-being of R.B. and his classmates.

[99]        During the exclusion, R.B. was provided with instruction from an itinerant teacher three hours per week in the public library. S.F. supplemented this instruction. S.F. developed a good rapport with the itinerant teacher and R.B. made significant academic gains under her instruction. For example, when he was excluded, R.B. was reading at level 2. By February 2013, he was reading at level 7.

[113]     The respondent alleges S.F. made unfounded allegations that R.B. was bullied in Grade 2...

[118]     Based on the respondent’s own evidence, I cannot find that S.F. made unfounded allegations of bullying in R.B.’s Grade 2 school year.

[119]     The respondent asserts that S.F. falsely accused the school of segregating R.B. in Grade 2.

[124]     Based on this evidence, I cannot conclude that S.F. made unfounded allegations of segregation in R.B.’s Grade 2 school year.

[130]     The respondent argues S.F. interfered with the accommodation process when she did not advise the Grade 2 teacher that R.B. was no longer taking medication in response to her inquiries in the fall of 2011, at a time when his behaviour was escalating. The evidence from Dr. Warkentin was R.B. was off medication by the end of October 2011.

[137]     For these reasons I cannot find that S.F.’s failure to disclose the fact that R.B. was no longer taking medication in the fall of 2011 interfered with the school’s ability to accommodate R.B.

[143]     I find that S.F.’s spouse made the statement to the Principal “if you want threatening, I’ll show you fucking threatening”. This statement was a verbal threat. There is no evidence before me that S.F.’s spouse physically threatened the Principal. Although the Principal testified he lunged towards her, the Vice-Principal testified he stepped towards her. Neither witness testified that he made any physical threat. The Principal left the room and the police were called.

[144]     The fact that S.F.’s spouse made this comment cannot be attributed as misconduct on S.F.’s part. Further, there is no connection between the comment and the accommodation process for R.B

[154]     Based on the above evidence, I cannot conclude that S.F.’s conduct prevented the school from accommodating R.B. in Grade 2. Even accepting that her conduct made her relationship with the school staff extremely difficult, there is no evidence that this difficult relationship prevented the school from meeting R.B.’s educational needs in Grade 2. Put simply, there is no evidence to establish a connection between S.F.’s conduct and the accommodation process for R.B.

[248]     During the period of the exclusion, R.B. was provided with instruction from an itinerant teacher for three hours per week in the public library.

Conclusion:

[255]     The applicant has established that he was denied a meaningful education when his EA support was cut in half in Grade 2, when he did not have an appropriate behaviour management plan from Grade 2 onwards, when he was excluded from school in October 2012 without appropriate educational instruction, and when the communication ban denied S.F. the opportunity to meet with R.B.’s teachers and EAs in order to ensure that his needs were met.

[256]     When a student is excluded from school, he is denied an education. No one would suggest that providing a student three hours of instruction per week in a public library, regardless of the effectiveness of that instruction, is an appropriate education. Dr. Stambrook agreed.

ORDER

[281]      The Tribunal orders the following;

a.   Payment by the respondent in the amount of $35,000.00 as monetary compensation for the injury to the applicant’s dignity, feelings and self-respect;

b.   R.B. will return to school in the 2013/2014 school year with a full-time shared EA in the classroom, speech/language support for 30 minutes per week and an appropriate behaviour management plan that has been agreed to by S.F. in consultation with R.B.’s treating specialists.

c.   S.F. is entitled to fully participate in the IPRC review meeting for the 2013/2014 school year and the development of R.B.’s IEP for this year;

d.   The trespass notice and communication ban issued in December 2011 is lifted.

*********

Another case that was accepted by the BC Human Rights Tribunal when a student was denied an EA for one of their classes, was mentioned in this anonymization decision:

This decision is an anonymization decision, but in the first paragraph it summarizes what the crux of the complaint is about.

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

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

REDUCING EA HOURS THAT LED TO HARM AND A DENIAL OF ACCESSING EDUCATION CAN BE A DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

Posted on

Strong Advocacy = Written Authority

School staff have a lot of discretion and power in decision-making related to our children. Not just to their learning but to their socialization. This is given to them by the School Act, other collective agreements, and even human rights decisions uphold their expertise.

At the same time, many of them lack knowledge in education law to fulfil their duties lawfully, and they can easily overstep and make mistakes. This gap in knowledge and a call for more legal training for educators is even written about in education law textbooks. (Education Law in Canada: A Guide for Teachers and Administrators, 2nd Edition. Edited by David C. Young). This book even lacks sufficient knowledge on the Duty to Accommodate, which they admit. This book for 2025, the written content entered was capped at February 2024.

We know that the Human Rights Code supersedes teacher classroom autonomy, but many educators don’t. For some, it is quite the wake-up call when they find this out. Accommodations are required. They don’t get to decide not to provide them because of how they want to run their classroom.

Many of them don’t know the legal obligations around IEPs. They aren’t just words on a page. Many of them are not aware that they can have a Teachers Regulation Branch complaint filed against them if they don’t follow them.

Chances are, if you have read all of my blogs, you will know more about your child’s rights than they will. Which is really a failing for all involved. I don’t think it is fair for teachers to truly not understand what their legal responsibilities are, either. I would feel nervous in that role.

But first, before we dive in: What is written authority?

Written authority is law, policy or some kind of document. Something that is written and acts on behalf of other people, that has power, and people will use it as a decision-making tool. If school staff deny our requests, we always want to ask them something along the lines of: What is the written authority that supports your decision? Basically, says who? Where does it come from? People just can’t just make stuff up.

Staff may feel very confident when making statements. You would swear by their confidence that they are true. Not necessarily. And not that they are intentionally trying to mislead you. Although some people may flat-out lie to you. As I have experienced both.

When they tell us information, especially when it is related to a decision, always ask where that information comes from.

If they tell you that teachers are allowed to _______________________.

Then we can ask them to show us where the written authority is that states they are allowed to do that.

Basically, administrators are very good at spinning stories and making things look very professional. They may legitimately believe what they are saying. We want to cautiously accept what they are saying to us, and always question what they are telling us. We don’t accept vague assertions. How you want to frame your inquiry is up to you. Maybe as a sense of curiosity, and wanting to understand your rights. But you have every right to understand fully where they are coming from, and which written authority they are basing their information on. Sometimes they are correct in what they are telling us, but we also know that the Human Rights Code supersedes policy.

The topic of trust is a layered topic when it comes to education for families with kids with disabilities. We have been hurt over and over again. We know the district operates from a liability lens and they have many obligations connected to staff and the public that go beyond the best interest of our child. We want to believe that they know what they are talking about. But sometimes… honestly…. they just don’t. Or they don’t understand the whole picture.

So what is that zone of trust that we need to enter? Where we can bring ourselves to trust them enought to drop our kids off every day, but also not believe everything they say and be vigilant enough to not assume they are doing everything they can or should for our child?

Ask where that information comes from.

Because you have a lot of written authorities on your side too.

The strongest form of advocacy includes the following: strong documentation, evidence, and written authorities (using law, policy, and other documents created by the school). Follow official internal complaint/advocacy channels. When necessary, file external complaints.

Info to know!

Evidence of Harm
How to Gather Evidence
Email Writing for Schools

Depending on the issue that you are navigating, ground your advocacy in:

  1. Human Rights Law – Duty to Accommodate
  2. School Act & Section 11
  3. Teachers Standards
  4. Students rights
  5. Parents rights
  6. Ministry Policy and Orders
  7. School Board Policy & Administrative Procedures – will be posted on your district’s website
  8. Accessibility Legislation – your district will have its accessibility committee posted on the district website.
  9. Administrative Procedural Fairness (Ombudsperson BC)
    .

Instead of us just taking their word for it, we can ask them to explain

For example: You are telling me they have full autonomy to make discipline decisions. How is the teacher’s discipline decision in line with the Teachers Standard #1?

Or

How has the school’s approach to my child’s IEP development been in line with #4 & #5?

If they have to go in front of the tribunal at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, they will need to provide evidence that they are providing your child with reasonable accommodations. So why not show you this now?

No one anywhere in any profession can just operate in a way or say things that are not grounded in truth, ethics, evidence, or in line with laws and policies. Not nurses, pharmacists, counsellors, car mechanics, engineers, dentists, etc, etc, etc.

We don’t want fluffy conversations that they think they can just float past us and we just accept these without understanding what they are talking about. We don’t accept vague beliefs or opinions. If they are using words that you don’t understand, stop them and ask them to explain. If they state something, we want to know, where is this coming from? Show me.

As you advocate, you will get better and better. You will learn more and more. Your child is getting an education. So are you.

They aren’t breaking you. They are building you. You can take this pile of shit that you are dealing with and turn it into fertilizer.

This stuff isn’t easy. Take it inch by inch. We don’t move mountains in a day. Scream into a pillow and then get to work.

Ask for help!

Here is the school advocacy help directory. These people know their stuff, and they can help you. You don’t need to do this alone. For those who would like to consult with a lawyer, I recommend Kesari Law Corp.

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.