Tag: #Law

Posted on

Disability – Related Adverse Impact (Dismissal Application)

School Employee Files Human Rights Complaint

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

Here are the two other cases:

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

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

Dismissal Application – School Employee

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

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

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

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

*******

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

********

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

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

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

*******

Four points to highlight

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discrimination Test

3 questions.

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

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

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

Posted on

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.

Posted on

How to Gather Evidence for the BC Human Rights Tribunal

Here are some options to consider. Gathering evidence is VERY important. It will make the school district and their lawyers very uncomfortable. They will not like it, and it could help you get that settlement you are looking for. It communicates to the lawyers that you are preparing for a hearing. They will also be concerned that if you have more evidence, you will feel more confident in your case and may ask for a higher settlement amount. So gathering evidence is EXCELLENT behaviour communication. Because remember, they don’t believe your words, but they do believe your behaviour.

You also want to be collecting evidence when things are going well. You never know what could happen in the future.

Step One – Create your own evidence

  1. Before you even file a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, you are going to be gathering your evidence while you advocate. Emails are KEY.
  2. Examples of this are:
    • After any oral communication (phone call/school meeting/face-to-face conversation) is done, send a follow up email with the meeting notes, summary of the conversation, and key action items or decisions that came from the meeting/conversation. Ask them to reply if you misunderstood anything, or if anything is incorrect.
    • Send emails that document your process. Who you spoke to, who you have emailed, about your advocacy. Documenting a timeline of your process is key.
  3. For some people, situations are so desperate that they are recording school meetings. I have never done this myself but for some people they have gathered the most incredible evidence. In Canada we have one person consent privacy laws. Please do your own research on this. **** IF you are an employee. PLEASE PLEASE consult with an employment lawyer before you do this. Recording your colleagues is VERY different and the case law on this bounces around a lot. You could lose your job over this. So, please consult with a lawyer.
  4. Gather evidence at home. Take pictures of bruises, homework pages, etc. I know this part will feel like an intrusion in your child’s privacy, but you may want to set up your camera to video their meltdowns at home, or them in a conversation with you about school refusal.
    .

Step Two – File a FOI

  1. File a Freedom of Information (FOI) request
  2. Here are the instructions. **** You are going to want to name every single person you have had a conversation with and list their supervisors above them. Also include the superintendent.
    .

With the FOI request, you will most likely never get all the evidence that exists. The school district is certainly not going to just hand you over all the evidence you will need to win your case. They are always wanting to reduce their liability.

But what you may get are some stepping stones that could be very helpful later.

Also check to make sure you think you have everything. If you feel like documents are missing or you want them to remove their redactions, you can file an OIPC complaint.

There was one case where during an OIPC process, the Ministry of Education accidently sent the people everything that they were hiding from them. Order 2833

[4] During the inquiry, the Ministry mistakenly gave the applicant access to a largely unredacted copy of the records (unredacted records) that was intended to be provided only to the OIPC. In doing so, the Ministry mistakenly disclosed to the applicant all the information in dispute under ss. 3(1)(b) and 13(1) and most of the information in dispute under s. 22(1).

Also, the school district I made a request through, accidently sent me emails to their lawyers. I had no idea the lawyers were involved so early on. That was an interesting piece of information. So, hey, why not give it a try, submit an FOI, you never know what you will get.
.

Step Three. – Filing applications for documents through the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BC HRT) process

PART A – Getting TRB documents

  1. When you file a human rights complaint, you may want to consider if you want to file Teacher Regulation Branch (TRB) complaints as well.
  2. This is completely depending on your situation, but you may want to consider not just filing on one person but on multiple people. If you include a principal and file a complaint, it is standard for them to meet with the teacher in trouble with a union rep and there will be meeting minutes. They may submit these to show the TRB they are doing their job and put blame on the teacher. ** But remember, every person you file on you will need to link their behaviour to not being in line with the teachers standards. You can file on teachers, principals and district staff. Anyone who is a certificate holder.
  3. The school staff think that their documents and communication with the TRB are completely confidential. And they are to a point. If you submit an FOI request after the complaint process is finished, you wont get any of the teacher documents. (Hold this point for later)
  4. A strategy that they will do if there are multiple filings, on the group is that they will blame each other and provide evidence on the other people in order to get the heat off of them.
  5. Then, during the human rights complaint process if the mediation settlement meeting fails and you move onto the document disclosure stage, this is where the action happens.
  6. You can file an application for documents. During the document disclosure phase the respondents (school districts lawyers) will give you a bunch of documents. I can tell you right now, it will be crap. They will be selecting documents meant to send you a message. It will be long. Mostly your communications. They will pick out the ones you are going to not like the most. But here, yet again, they aren’t just going to lay out all of the evidence for you. You are going to need to fight for it. And that fight for it, will be via an application process. Form 7.1 – Order a party to give you documents.
  7. You can follow this process and apply for documents from your TRB complaints. For me, this process gave me the most incredible evidence. Like, shockingly so.
  8. You can explain to the tribunal why these documents are relevant to your case, or how you need these documents to question their credibility at the hearing. Be very thoughtful when you write your application.
  9. ****** No matter what, if you request documents and they tell you they don’t have them, DON’T BELIEVE THEM. File an application anyways. This happened to me, I didn’t believe them. Filed an application, and within weeks I got exactly what I knew they had. This was even after an unsuccessful OIPC complaint. The BC HRT has stronger teeth than the OIPC.
  10. Filing applications not only gets you evidence, it makes you expensive. This encourages them even more to settle. Something to keep in mind in a settlement meeting, you may want to let them know all of the applications you plan on filing for the document disclosure part of the process. Which, you can file applications continually up to the hearing. Make this process very expensive for them. The School Protection Program is not going to want to pay for all of these lawyer fees.
    .

PART B – Become a detective

  1. The second step after you get your FOI is go through everything with a fine tooth comb and look at the names on the email addresses. Who is there, but also who is missing. Think if that information is relevant.
  2. Count the pages, are there pages missing. Did they remove anything. (I had missing pages)
  3. Read the emails. Did they mention a meeting or any other documents being created? If so, you are now going to include that in your application for more documents. Follow the trail until you hit a dead end. You are going to want those meeting minutes and a copy of any documents that were created from those meetings.
    .

PART C – What to just automatically request

  1. Request minutes for meetings. If teachers are in trouble, they will be meeting with the principal and a union rep. Request those meeting minutes. There is potential golden evidence in there.
  2. Emails – include teachers, LSS teachers, always a principal, and whoever you last met with – whatever level they are at, request emails that include the name of their supervisor.
  3. Always include the superintendent. ** We want to know if they were involved and aware. They could be a potential witness at your hearing. School district is going to jump when they see their name on the witness list.
    .

Step Four – Another round

  1. Whenever you get documents from your applications, go through everything with a fine tooth comb again. Are there more breadcrumbs that talk about other meetings, involve other people, refer to other documents?
  2. Request that they remove ALL the redactions. This can be done informally, just through an email to the lawyers, and if they don’t – file another application.

.

You are going to need to put your detective hat on and become Nancy Drew. They will most likely be hiding evidence from you, and the tribunal will only be basing their decision on the evidence they have in front of them, not your opinion or thoughts. When people don’t have evidence the tribunal will say something along the lines of your case being dismissed because you haven’t brought your allegations out of the realm of conjecture. Gathering your evidence will be KEY. Be patient. Be methodical. Start the hunt.

Also, remember to document when things are going well.

As this parent reports,

“Districts often argue that they did the best they could with the information they had at the time. Keeping thorough documentation when things are going well makes it’ll a lot more difficult to use this argument, since you will be able to clearly show when specific accommodations were removed and the harm that resulted. I think it also adds to my credibility as a parent, showing that I collaborate in good faith and facilitate accommodations.” – Parent

Related Blogs
Let’s Talk about Hindsight
Why is Documentation so Important?
Evidence of Harm. Effective advocacy in Education
Liability in Education

Posted on

Building Advantage – Hearing Preparation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t. Let. Anything. Slide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just do it In writing. Of course.

ALL of the details matters. They all add up.

Posted on

Complaints are the Ultimate Protest

External complaint bodies are the only ones with investigative powers to look inside what is happening in the world of education.

Parents are the ones who have the ability to file a compliant and invite other professionals (mostly legal) into the districts to take a little lookie-loo.

These organizations have legislation behind them that gives them the power to force the school to hand over unredacted documents for their examination. Compel witnesses to be questioned. For teacher’s to explain themselves against teachers standards. Decisions get made – posted publicly. Journalists have access to these decisions and they write articles on them. They spread. Sometimes nationally.

This type of protest…compliant filing…is permanent. If nothing else, it creates data collected by the organizations. It informs them of what the issues are. We are seen. We aren’t invisible.

Ombudsperson BC – makes systemic strategic decisions based on the complaints being filed. The complaints lead the way. For example: The school exclusion investigation currently taking place.

Teachers Regulation Branch (Professional Conduct Unit) – department of the Ministry of Education can remove someone’s teacher’s license and ban them from the profession, suspend them, or send them for professional development. The professional development piece can even happen if the decision doesn’t get posted. The complaint stays in their file.

OIPC – Protectors of privacy but also allowing us to access documents they would never hand over.

BC Human Rights Tribunal – creates case law that sets the foundation and the framework with how the school needs to function, or face the consequences. Human rights complaints can be like a car crash for a school district. Depends on the type of complaint, the complexity, the fault of staff, and how far you take them through the process. They can incur direct and indirect costs. Legal fees are expensive. Their insurance will go up. There may be casualties (staff may leave or be forced to leave). There may be injuries (staff may experience health, emotional, mental, or financial harm). The district needs to deal with the aftermath.

When I started filing complaints, I found it to be so incredibly stressful, but at the same time found it oddly comforting. It gave me hope. It saved my sanity. Took the edge off. Gave me something to focus on. Somebody else needed to know what I knew.

It came down to this:

I will never prioritize the needs of adults with resources over a trapped child experiencing harm who has no escape, and can’t do anything but endure.

Not filing a complaint on an adult who is a paid professional because you don’t want to be the one to make them feel uncomfortable feelings, meanwhile your child is experiencing hell, doesn’t make sense to me. Sure, it doesn’t feel great, but I am not keeping silent and upholding up this system so you can feel comforted in your safe predictable environment. You want to shove this under the rug without getting a scratch. Ummm no!

This is the protest. When we give them all the chances in the world to make this right and they still don’t…this is the only power we have to try and fix things.

What really gets me is that if they feel like they can get away this shit, they will keep on doing it. That. I can’t handle.

Schools can be a little too good at prioritizing their own liability needs.

So when should we file?

I absolutely do suggest you give the school a chance to resolve this with you before you start filing complaints. It truly will be better for you and your child to get a quick resolution. Climb the ladder and go above the principal. Contact the district administrators. These complaints systems are SLOW.

However….some of things that people tell me… and what I know as well…. I mean… come on districts…. are you seriously not expecting a reaction? We aren’t looking for the power struggle. We aren’t.

I have never met a group of people so hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot, than I have with school administrators. Well.. some of them.

The people who are really good at their jobs are people who are focused on communicating and solutions. These are the people we love. These are the people the next generation needs.

The next generation also need advocates. Willing to protest.

From a systemic perspective. We need the risk takers. The wild ones ready to plow new paths that seem completely illogical. We need the quieter, relationship focused advocates building inch by inch. We need the backstage advocates with the networks and unknown conversations. Swaying power every so secretly.

These external complaint systems are far from perfect. They are also all we have. If we all just stopped engaging with them until they were perfect… we would be in serious trouble. The education system would truly see us all as door mats. Buzzy mosquitoes to flick off.

If you do choose to file a complaint. Please do your research. Each is a silo. Different legislation. Different outcome options and different amounts of power. You have options.

If filing a complaint is something you don’t want to do. You still have options. It is not all or nothing. Advocacy still continues. Persistently. Consistently.

Trust in your ability to know yourself. You will find the path that you want to take. The one that matches your advocacy style. All is good. Everyone is needed and all of the different styles. We balance each other out. This is a marathon. It’s a team sport. We train individually, but we run together.

Peace.

Posted on

Liability in Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good news is. And there is good news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a fine line we walk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This message will self destruct in 5 seconds.

EDIT TO ADD: Jan 29, 2026

School Protection Program

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

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

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

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

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

See page 10

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

Including:

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

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

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

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

Here is the administrators handbook:

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