Good question!
Many parent(s)/guardians are asking this question. What they are experiencing in the education system is mass systemic discrimination and they are wondering how in the world is this allowed to happen?? Doesn’t the Charter protect our rights?
Let’s tear this question to bits.
Why can’t we just sue the government?
Funding
- A large majority of parents who want to sue the government is because of lack of funding. They want more money from the government to be spent on their children.
.
When you sue the government it needs to meet a specific legal test. We can’t just sue for lack of funding. If we could, any non-profit organization that felt they weren’t getting enough funding would be suing. That would be all of them. All non-profit organizations of marginalized community groups need more funding and feel they are never getting enough to service their community who are facing lots of discriminatory situations. They are all understaffed. All competing for grants. All desperate. All good and worthy causes. All justified. Yet still… not getting the funding to meet the needs of their community. Keep reading, I’ll explain further.
Quality of Life
2. Something to keep in mind, the government doesn’t owe us a certain standard of living. There is no legislation or law on this. We know this because people are sleeping on the streets and they can’t sue the government for being in that position.
Democracy & Charter of Rights
3. Our government works as a democracy. The system that we have to express our dislike over how the government spends our money, is through voting, contacting your MLA, or peaceful protesting. Other social movement activities like signing petitions, or starting your own non-profit organizations to work with other community members to advocate are all “system” approved ways of furthering your cause. As we will read below in case law, courts will not tell the government how to spend their money when it’s connected to resources in dealing with inequity. The government is allowed to take a “one-step” at a time approach when addressing issues of inequality. They are allowed to determine how to spend society’s limited resources and create social policy when choosing between disadvantaged groups. Something to keep in mind, our system is set up as a separation of powers between the government and the court system. The “conversation” that happens back and forth between courts and the government creating laws is often referred to as the democratic dialogue. See the two Supreme Court of Canada decisions related to Charter Challenges below.
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., 2004 SCC 66 (CanLII), [2004] 3 SCR 381
[75] [I]t is not realistic for the Court to assume that there are unlimited funds to address the needs of all.”
[79] While purely financial considerations are not sufficient to justify the infringement of Charter rights, they are relevant to determining the standard of deference for the test of minimal impairment when reviewing legislation which is enacted for a purpose which is not financial.
[83] It is also clear that while financial considerations alone may not justify Charter infringements . . . governments must be afforded wide latitude to determine the proper distribution of resources in society . . . This is especially true where Parliament, in providing specific social benefits, has to choose between disadvantaged groups . . . .
Fraser V. Canada [2020] SCC 28
[ 207 ] Governments must be afforded the latitude to act incrementally when addressing a deeply ingrained, complex and persistent social phenomenon such as inequality. (This assumes that the inequality arises from factors in society; where the government itself has created the inequality, matters are, as we have already indicated, somewhat different.) There are processes by which a government must set its priorities, allocate its budget, and obtain parliamentary approval of its programs. In designing legislation to address a particular equality issue, a government can draw on far more internal and external expertise than we judges can. As a result, it is better positioned than we are to appreciate the consequences of a particular course of law‑making, both upon society and upon public resources. With these practical realities in mind, we must also recognize that, were a government expected to remove all inequalities for all groups on every occasion it acted, it may be disinclined to act, given that any remedial scheme will inevitably be under‑inclusive in some respect. Governments would, understandably, become “reluctant to create any new [remedial] benefit schemes because their limits would depend on an accurate prediction of the outcome of court proceedings under s. 15(1) of the Charter ” ( Egan v. Canada , [1995] 2 SCR 513, at para. 104, per Sopinka J.).
[ 208 ] To avoid this chilling effect, and to encourage governments to enact remedial legislation addressing pre‑existing disadvantage, this Court has (until now) judiciously accepted that governments may implement reforms “one step at a time, [and] address[s ] [the reforms] to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind” ( R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. , [1986] 2 SCR 713, at p. 772, quoting Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma , 348 US 483 (1955), at p. The focal point in assessing remedial legislation is not to ask whether the government has met “the gold standard” ( Auton , at para. 62; see also paras. 59-61), but to recognize that government should not be obliged to deal with all aspects of a problem at once. It must surely be permitted to take incremental measures. It must be given reasonable leeway to deal with problems one step at a time, to balance possible inequalities under the law against other inequalities resulting from the adoption of a course of action, and to take account of the difficulties, whether social, economic or budgetary , that would arise if it attempted to deal with social and economic problems in their entirety, assuming such problems can ever be perceived in their entirety. [Emphasis added.]
[ 213 ] …..This is because only legislatures have the institutional capacity to conduct the research and study necessary to assess how, and at what pace, its resources should be applied to most effectively address a particular pre‑existing equality issue (and ultimately, to oversee that implementation) . Courts are not well placed to define the nature and scope of an obligation to enact
sufficiently remedial legislation (Ferrel v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1998), 42 OR (3d) 97 (CA), at p. 113).
[229 ] Similar issues will undoubtedly arise with any other social welfare legislation or government attempts to remedy systemic disadvantage. By reserving the right to arbitrarily second‑guess and undo any legislation that attempts to incrementally address systemic disadvantage, the Court makes it more practically difficult for legislatures and governments to implement policies that promote equality. Put simply, we see restricting the government’s ability to incrementally address disadvantage as a peculiar way to promote equality.
Human Rights Cases Involving Ministry of Education
4. Every single human rights case that I have read across Canada, that has included the provincial Ministry of Education in their complaint, has been dismissed. If their complaint continues, the Ministry of Education is never involved. I haven’t read one case where the Ministry of Education was included. The Ministry gives the funding to the districts and the districts decide how to allocate the money, which removes the Ministry of Education from decisions that would pull them into the human rights complaints about kids not accessing needed resources.
5. I know someone who had the opportunity to consult a lawyer regarding this matter. They were told a way to file a class action human rights complaint that could involve the Ministry of Education is if the Ministry have policy that is discriminatory. This route is still possible if they do this. Here is an example of this in a Charter court case that took place in Alberta. Kerber v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 98
Human Rights Process
6. I have been asked, why can’t we just file a class action human rights complaint against the Ministry of Education? So we have established, it would need to be something like a discriminatory policy in order for it to be connected to the Ministry. If there is a group of parents who want to file a class action human rights complaint who wants to create a decision from the tribunal, we would need to find a group of parents who were potentially prepared for a 8-10-year fight. Right now, just for a single complaint to reach a hearing level at the BC HRT, it will take about 4-5 years according to flow chart produced by the BC Human Rights Clinic. It could take a year for the tribunal to write a decision, if not more. This case took 15 months for the tribunal to write up the decision. Especially if it was a class-action human rights complaint it could be long and complex. Class action lawsuits tend to be long. Lawyers fees for one parent I know, was given an estimate for $30,000 for hearing preparation and a $10,000 per day for a hearing. The school district lawyer will know your resources for lawyer fees are limited and they will do everything they can to drive up your lawyer costs. So this group of parents would need to be prepared to spend thousands and thousands of dollars, agree to not accept any settlement, and continue along to a hearing. OR they would need to be ready to self-represent themselves. OR they could find a unicorn of a lawyer willing to do pro-bono work. (So many parents have had their pro-bono lawyer drop them before a hearing. We would need to find someone willing to commit for the long haul for free.) After the BC HRT decision is posted, the Ministry could possibly file a Judicial Review after the decision. With a class action decision, the compensation money might be large enough or the precedent be enough that the school districts lawyers would view it worthwhile to pursue further a Judicial Review. That would launch it now to the BC Supreme Court. Even with all that, a policy change would affect only those impacted by the policy and wouldn’t make the systemic change that parents are looking for when they ask the question, why can’t we just sue the government? (Which typically means, how do we get more funding?) If parents want a policy change, I wonder if it would be best to file a single complaint and get the policy change during a settlement mediation meeting. It would be so much faster and they could get the policy change that they need much faster so it could impact their children. Not 10 years later. However, that would just be a policy change within their district, and not provincially. The very system that is intended to resolve discriminatory issues can be a barrier itself.
Courts & Education
7. Generally, the courts don’t like education cases. It depends on what you are suing for and what the legal test is.
For example: Educational Malpractice
Gould v. Regina (East) School Division No. 77, 1996 CanLII 6807 (SK KB)
“The courts are an inappropriate forum to test the
efficacy of educational programs and pedagogical methods.
That judicial interference would be the inevitable result of
the recognition of a legal duty of care is clear from the fact
that in presenting their case, plaintiffs would, of necessity,
call upon jurors to decide whether they should have been
taught one subject instead of another, or whether one teaching
method was more appropriate than another, or whether certain
tests should have been administered or test results
interpreted in one way rather than another, and so on, ad
infinitum. It simply is not within the judicial function to
evaluate conflicting theories of how best to educate. Even if
it were possible to determine with exactitude the pedagogical
course to follow with respect to particular individuals, yet
another problem would arise. Public education involves an
inherent stress between taking action to satisfy the
educational needs of the individual student and the needs of
the student body as a whole. It is not for the courts to
determine how best to utilize scarce educational resources to
achieve these sometimes conflicting objectives. Simply
stated, the recognition of a cause of action sounding in
negligence to recover for “educational malpractice” would
impermissibly require the courts to oversee the administration
of the State’s public school system.“
Costs & Risk
8. If we did want to try and sue the government via the court system and not the human rights route, we would need to be prepared for it to possibly be tossed out. That wouldn’t be such a bad risk to take, however, if we lose the respondents will ask the courts that we pay their legal fees. Which can happen for the losing party in court cases. You’ll want to read this link. Costs are awarded to the successful party.
The Charter – Limited
9. What I learned from my human rights law class was that we don’t just have open-ended rights under the Charter, our rights are how they are DEFINED under the Charter. And that is case law. Case law tells us how our rights to not be discriminated against is defined. An example of this definition is the case Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, 1997 CanLII 366 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 241. This case famously defined reasonable accommodations and separate classes for students with a disability as a reasonable accommodation due to what is considered reasonable and best interest of the child. All of the human rights cases that make it to hearings are what define our rights under the law too. These definitions and interpretations of law are important. (Duty to accommodate) Each decision defines our rights.
10. Also an important part of the Charter to understand is Section One – Reasonable Limits. The purpose of this “Section 1 effects a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society by permitting limits to be placed on guaranteed rights and freedoms. “Most modern constitutions recognize that rights are not absolute and can be limited if this is necessary to achieve an important objective and if the limit is appropriately tailored, or proportionate.”
(Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 SCR 610, at paragraph 36).”
To take a Charter challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada it would be a 10-year fight, we would need a pro bono lawyer, and based on the case law I have seen, I am not aware of any case law that would be substantial in helping us to force the government to increase funding and resources for kids with disabilities in education.
11. Law isn’t the magic bullet that people tend to think it is. Laws can come into force but they need to be APPLIED for them to have an impact. That means that advocacy around using these laws will still need to happen. Law is a tool for us to use. The system needs to uphold these laws through its systems and accountability design. If the system doesn’t uphold a new law, it won’t be the magic we want it to be. We have laws that say it’s illegal to discriminate, and yet it still happens every day. We still need to change people’s hearts and minds. Law is a start, but it is just the beginning of the work. We need to take these laws and apply them. Laws won’t fix everything, but they are hugely important. We need a social movement AND laws. We need to use every avenue we have. I think of the parachute activities I used to play with my kids at Strong Start centers. We’d all have a piece of the very large parachute to hold onto and put the ball in and bounce it around. We all need to lift and do the work together if we want to keep the ball of inclusion on the parachute. We all need to be in our own corners, all lifting together simultaneously. All of the work done at BCCPAC, parent advocacy groups, advocacy organizations, human rights work, BC Ed Access, School Trustees, BCTF, Teacher’s unions, Post-secondary teacher education programs, EA programs, Professional Support Staff, Counsellors, Ministry of Education and Child Care, accessibility committees, and individual parents, all of us.
So now what?
This part is my opinion and experience. The soft spot of the education system is money. The people in power care about money.
It needs to become more expensive and time-consuming to deal with the consequences of discriminating against students with disabilities. Providing an inclusive education needs to become easier and less expensive. Which means to me, through my lens…. human rights complaints. LOTS OF THEM.
I can tell you 100%, and I have witnessed these meetings, that when systems get too many human rights complaints and their litigation costs go through the roof, then and only then do they start to look at how they can make policy changes to reduce the number of human rights complaints. I don’t care what their motivation is, the results are still the same. Policy in the right direction. Staff training. This is what it seems to take.
Human Rights complaints have the potential of being very expensive, as we advance the purpose of the Code and create those gold nugget decisions.
Dealing with ableism is slow and painful work. But necessary. Social movements are like that.
Every little bit of advocacy we do, all adds up. It all matters. Every bit of human rights law advancements, every decision, every DPAC inclusion meeting, every email to your MLA or school Trustee, every advocacy advancement you make, every time you support another parent. All of it.
We need an army of informed and empowered parents, spreading out and reaching all the corners of the province.
For those of you who are willing and able to get in the ring and make discrimination expensive, hats off to you, we need you. File away.
SOCIAL MOVEMENT + HUMAN RIGHTS LAW = MORE EQUITY, LESS ABLEISM
If anyone wants to consult with an lawyer who specializes in education, I recommend https://www.kesarilaw.com/
