This case is from Ontario, not BC. It may be influential and cited by the school district’s lawyers.
M.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2026 HRTO 801
This case is about a parent who felt that when their child’s 1:1 EA (this specific person) was removed, that the school failed to accommodate their child.
Continuity of care is a topic that many parents are passionate about. Your child’s EA works so beautifully together with your child, and your child is doing so well; it can be very concerning when that specific EA is no longer supporting your child. What can you do?
There are a couple key learnings that we can takeaway from this case. There is no point in parents who are struggling with similar issues continually entering the human rights tribunal arena to have all their complaints dismissed.
Reading education cases can be very valuable as we learn what the tribunal will expect in terms of evidence and what we need to prove our case. We take this learning forward with us, and we are like the marshmallow man in Ghostbusters. As a community, we’ll just get bigger and bigger. It is because of their determination that we can learn from their decisions and be better prepared if you ever decide to file a complaint over similar issues. I hugely thank all parents willing to take this path. Every decision is GOLD.
Key Learnings
- Stating your opinions or your feelings about how your child is not going to meet the bar of evidence required. You need documented evidence.
- You need to be able to explain in detail events/areas of frustration & unmet needs, not just make vague assertions about your beliefs.
- The school is documenting everything. Including what you say and what you DON’T say.
As always, I encourage you to read the case in full.
The student’s preferred EA was Mary Valmas. The applicant is the student’s parent. The EA, Mary Valmas was no longer working with the student in 2019-20.
*******
[25] Both applicant witnesses testified as to their belief that the claimant had done academically well when provided 1:1 services from SNC Mary Valmas and, after Mary Valmas was moved to another school, the claimant no longer received 1:1 support from Mary Valmas or any other SNC, the claimant was disadvantaged in no longer being able to fully participate or access meaningful education.
[26] I understand and accept from the two applicant witnesses that Ms. Valmas had a positive working relationship with the claimant and his mother. The evidence was that Ms. Valmas is very dedicated to her role and she wished for the success of the claimant. It is clear from the evidence that the claimant’s mother loves her son very much and the claimant’s mother was happy with the working relationship between the claimant and Ms. Valmas. On that basis she wished for it to continue.
*******
The school district had their witness, Ms. Jones.
********
[29] The claimant’s mother testified as to her belief that the claimant required the specific supports. However, I did not hear why, other than the claimant’s mother’s general belief that the claimant required disability-related accommodations at school and the accommodations of 1:1 support specifically with Ms. Valmas had been up to that point a positive experience for the claimant. As stated above, I agree and accept that the claimant required accommodations and I believe the mother that the claimant worked well with Ms. Valmas, but this testimony alone fails to adequately establish that the claimant required the 1:1 support by Ms. Valmas or another full time SNC.
[30] I preferred the respondent’s fully uncontradicted documentary and oral evidence from Michelle Jones. Ms. Jones’ testimony was fully supported by documentary evidence that were filed as exhibits. Ms. Jones testified that she was the Assistant Curriculum Lead of Special Education at John Polanyi Collegiate Institute (“John Polanyi”) with the respondent school board during the 2019-2020 school year. Ms. Jones testified that on January 25, 2016, the claimant’s family participated in an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) meeting before the claimant started secondary school at John Polanyi. At that IPRC, the claimant continued to be deemed “exceptional” with the exceptionality being a Mild Intellectual Disability.
[38] Rather, I preferred the respondent’s fully uncontradicted documentary and testimony evidence from Michelle Jones. Ms. Jones testified that in the 2019-2020 academic year the claimant was successful and arguably more successful than he had been in the two study years prior. I further reviewed the claimant’s Ontario Student Transcript, which showed that he earned all 8 of his credits taken during the 2019-2020 school year, whereas during the 2018-2019 school year, he only earned 7 credits as he did not pass mathematics and needed to repeat it and in the 2017-2018 school year, the Applicant earned 6 only credits, as he did not obtain his English or mathematics credits in his second semester.
********
Here is the big thing right here.
If you don’t write about concerns, then the assumption is that everything is fine.
********
[39] Moreover, Ms. Jones testified that during the 2019-2020 school year, she received no concerns by the claimant or his supports about any of his academic accommodations, social-emotional health, safety concerns or any concerns about how the supports being provided were failing to meet his needs.
********
Document. Document. Document.
Keep a timeline of “events”, issues or areas of frustration.
Email concerns you have about unmet needs not being reasonably accommodated.
If you bring your case to a hearing, this brings up the issue of parents providing evidence when they are not physically in the school witnessing anything and they are relying on their children’s information. That becomes a problem if you are going to testify and not your child.
Parents’ credibility is under scrutiny. For more information on this topic, I give you this blog. Does my Child Need to Testify?
This is why we rely on emails to document what is happening. What are the signs of distress or unmet needs that you are seeing at home? Keep a log. Write it down and then email the school and tell them. It will trigger meaningful inquiry. Part 7 – Applying the duty to accommodate – focus on needs.
*******
[42] For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed.
*******
Here is some excellent advice from a fellow parent advocate:
“This relates to something that I tell parents. If an individual staff member is providing an effective support to your child, make sure that you document in the IEP.
Many parents mistakenly assume that if one staff member implements successful accommodations, then that will continue through to the next year. But if its not in the IEP, a staff member doesn’t have to provide it.
Staff members often won’t be able to spontaneously tell you about successful supports they are implementing, as it’s often an inherent part of their teaching/support style. Asking questions and documenting responses when things are going well is just as important as doing it when things are not going well.
So if a teacher says in an IEP meeting that your child is writing amazing essays, ask what it looks like for supporting your child through completing that activity. Then, get any successful supports documented, so if your child starts struggling to write essays the following year, you can reference the IEP support that was proven to be successful.
Make them know from experience that you will follow up and hold the school accountable to implementing IEP accommodations. That way, they are more likely to carefully consider which staff members are going to be most able to implement those accommodations based on their personal support/teaching style. I find this often helps with them putting more thoughtful consideration into class/EA placement.”