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.