Tag: #School

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

Using AI While you Navigate the BC Human Rights Tribunal

You need to be VERY careful. The respondents could apply for costs against you and you may need to pay. AI can generate fake cases and this will harm you, not help you. (You may want to check to see if the lawyers are giving you fake cases. It has happened and lawyers have gotten into a lot of trouble over it.)

This case was posted just last week, Thursday January 15th, 2026. If you are interested in the case itself, you can click on the case link below and give it a read. However, I have pulled some key paragraphs regarding AI use.

RR v. Fraser Health Authority and others (No.3), 2025 BCHRT 287

[223]       The use of AI tools by parties to assist in the presentation of their cases has increased dramatically over the past several years. This has yielded both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, people who are self-represented before the Tribunal may have better access to information about legal tests and precedents, and how their specific situation may have been handled by the Tribunal in the past. On the negative side, it has become widely recognised that AI tools frequently generate false information, including fake cases, which can appear to be legitimate.  

[224]       Recently, the Tribunal has cautioned parties about the responsible and appropriate use of AI tools in the Tribunal’s process. In Duarte v. City of Richmond, 2024 BCHRT 347, the Tribunal stated that parties appearing before the Tribunal must carefully assess the information that AI tools produce before using such information in the Tribunal process, and that deliberate attempts to mislead the Tribunal, or even careless submission of fabricated information, can form the basis for an award of costs under s. 37(4) of the Code. The Tribunal emphasised that the integrity of the Tribunal’s process, and the justice system more broadly, requires parties to exercise diligence in ensuring that their engagement with artificial intelligence does not supersede their own judgement and credibility: at para 53.

[225]       Similarly, the BC Court of Appeal has recently held that although parties may use AI tools to assist them in the Court’s process, “like any litigation aid, the human behind the tool remains responsible for what comes before the Court”: Wu v. Murray, 2025 BCCA 365, at para. 14.

[226]       In the present case, I do not believe RR purposely attempted to mislead the Tribunal or the Respondents. Further, the Respondents have not alleged that RR has breached any Tribunal rule, order, or policy. The Tribunal does not yet have a published policy regarding the use of AI tools in its process, or information cautioning parties about its use. Although the Tribunal has published one decision that talks about the improper use of AI tools in closing submissions, I do not expect that RR, as a self-represented person without legal training, would have known about that decision.

[227]       Further, although RR included numerous fake cases in her submissions, and although the Tribunal and the Respondents were required to expend resources to establish that the cases were not valid, it cannot be said that either the Respondents, or the complaint resolution process more generally, were significantly prejudiced. In the present situation, it was RR who was most prejudiced by her use of the fake cases. This is because the Tribunal could not rely on the majority of the legal propositions she cited, or the factual contexts from the fake cases that she said resembled the context in her own complaint.

[228]       Ultimately, in these circumstances, I do not find that RR’s inclusion of the fake cases amounts to improper conduct warranting an order of costs. As such, I decline to exercise my discretion to award costs against RR for improper conduct. These reasons should not be taken to condone the inclusion of fake cases with a party’s submissions or suggest that in other cases an order for costs would not be appropriate.

*******

For a blog on financial risk navigating the BC HRT read: Is there a financial risk to filing a human rights complaint?

Posted on

Education Assistant – Employment Human Rights Complaint

I just want to preface this with a message before I even dive into this. Tribunal decisions do not reflect all of the information or the full story. They are not tell all novels. They only highlight the information that they need to legally analyze the discrimination decision. There could be all sorts of stuff that you will never publicly read about.

I don’t typically post decisions regarding education staff as my focus is for parents/caregivers and students. I did write a blog that I think is helpful for education staff filing human rights complaints. However, this decision is unique in that I don’t often see an Education Assistant (EA) human rights complaints in BC. This complaint raises some interesting issues and demonstrates some important procedural fairness accommodations that I think is important for parents/caregivers and students to know about who are considering navigating or currently navigating.

What started this complaint was her disagreement over an Autistic student being excluded from school. It then snowballed into harassment and bullying allegations from Ms. Broe to other staff and staff filed allegations against her.

[14]           Ms. Gowe worked with Ms. Broe at the Secondary School from 2010 to 2018. Ms. Gowe stated that Ms. Broe would often come to her with concerns, and she would try to provide clarification, support, and direction to Ms. Broe about her role. However, Ms. Gowe testified that around the fall of 2017, she became concerned that Ms. Broe was being overly critical of other staff and not staying within the scope of her role as a CEA. Ms. Gowe was also approached by several staff who reported concerns about Ms. Broe’s behaviour. Ms. Gowe began documenting these concerns in case Ms. Broe’s behaviour escalated further.

[15]           From Ms. Broe’s perspective, it was her job to do what she thought was right for the students even if this was perceived as her challenging the decisions of other staff. One example from this period was discussed by several witnesses at the hearing. Ms. Broe testified extensively about a decision made without her input to temporarily remove a student with Autism she worked with from the Secondary School. Ms. Broe felt this was the wrong decision and she needed to take action to return the student to school. Ms. Broe first brought her concerns to a special education teacher, who subsequently approached Ms. Gowe with her own concerns that Ms. Broe was being overly critical of another staff member involved in the decision. Ms. Broe then went to the school Principal and subsequently, feeling that someone had lied to the Principal about the student, reached out to the Director of Support Services at the District, Susan Thomson. Ms. Thomson met with Ms. Broe to listen to her concerns but informed her that the decision had been made by a “darn good team” and she needed to move on. Ms. Gowe testified that she was concerned that Ms. Broe’s actions around this issue were causing stress to other staff and indicated that Ms. Broe was “crossing boundaries” and unable to let things go.

I am aware that if you are an EA and you are advocating on behalf of a student, you can end up putting your head on the chopping block. Even though on paper, documents say that advocating is part of your job, “4.4 Advocate for the protection of the legal and human rights of students and their families“. In reality, that isn’t necessarily so. This is true for teachers as well. A teacher who blogs The Canary Collective wrote about her experience. Her first line in her first blog ” I never imagined that advocating for students would put my career at risk.” She says she was disciplined for advocating.

Regarding this case with the education assistant, I am not going to post all of the details of this case. You can read through it all. It sounds like it’s been a difficult experience for many people involved, including Ms. Broe. This is the third posted public decision in this case. You can find the other two on CanLii.

Broe v. The Board of Education of School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha) (No.3), 2025 BCHRT 295

I do want to highlight some hearing procedural items that occurred that I think is important be aware of, to know what is possible.

Flexibility – Procedural Fairness



[49]           Ms. Broe worked hard to represent herself in this complaint. I gave her significant latitude with her testimony, which took place over seven days. Similarly, she was allowed to extensively cross-examine the District’s witnesses, including a full day with Mr. Corday and more than a day with Mr. Burgoyne.

[50]           This was a difficult hearing for Ms. Broe and some of the witnesses involved. One witness expressed that it felt like Ms. Broe was using the Tribunal process to get “revenge” for the events in the complaint. It was clear that revisiting these events was stressful for Ms. Broe, and her emotions were often heightened. Although she had the opportunity to ask questions, and receive answers, from individuals involved in the events leading to this complaint, she expressed that some of the evidence was hurtful and caused her to question her sense of self.

[51]           We took additional breaks as necessary. Ms. Broe was also offered the option of having a support person sit with her throughout the hearing, however the person she identified was not available. Having expressed that seeing Mr. Corday in the virtual hearing room was a trigger for Ms. Broe, he agreed to attend the hearing with his camera turned off, with the exception of when he was providing his testimony.

[52]           Ms. Broe was also given significant latitude with respect to her documentary evidence. Before the hearing, I held a case conference with the parties where we discussed, among other things, how to admit documents at the hearing. I explained that any documents previously submitted to the Tribunal in preliminary applications would not form part of the hearing record, and if a party wanted to introduce a document at the hearing, they had to provide it as part of their book of documents. I confirmed these instructions in writing. The parties agreed to prepare a joint book of documents, which they submitted to the Tribunal a few days before the hearing began.

[53]           On the first day of the hearing, however, Ms. Broe sought to rely on documents that were not included in the joint book of documents and which she had not provided to the Tribunal for the purpose of the hearing. I reminded Ms. Broe of the instructions I had provided and directed her to review all her documents after we had adjourned for the day, submit them to the Tribunal and the District, and we would address any procedural fairness issues the following day. Ms. Broe agreed to follow these instructions.

[54]           The next morning however, she had not provided the documents and expressed that she had not slept and was confused about the process. We revisited the document issue the morning of the third day of hearing, as Ms. Broe again wished to rely on the documents she had not provided according to my instructions. The District’s legal counsel offered a solution: she would send the Tribunal a file containing all the documents Ms. Broe had disclosed to the District in advance of the hearing and would not object to these documents being admitted on the basis of inadequate notice. This allowed the Tribunal to access Ms. Broe’s documents, one by one, as Ms. Broe sought to introduce them. While there were still delays caused by this approach, the District’s cooperation in problem-solving allowed Ms. Broe to present the evidence that she had previously prepared in a manner that made sense to her. I thank legal counsel for her efforts in this regard.

*******

The tribunal is very aware for people filing complaints, this is not an easy process, and many people navigating the process have mental disabilities. It’s stressful and emotional. It is a legal process and by how our legal system is designed, it is adversarial. Most people don’t have lawyers or training in any legal education. Some people are incarcerated while they are navigating this process. For the tribunal, it is their role to make this process as fair as possible for both sides.

If you need something, don’t assume you will get a no. Always ask! You never know what is possible.

The final decision was that her complaint was dismissed. She didn’t meet the legal test for discrimination. You have the burden of proof to prove you were discriminated against, and then if you do that then the respondents need to try to prove that it was justifiable to the point of undue hardship.

*****

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

******

Tribunal members who write decisions will sometimes acknowledge that people have been harmed by the events they are describing in their cases. In this case, they did this as well. Which I always appreciate when they do that. I hope that acknowledgement and validation is helpful for people. Human rights decisions also state that negative experiences are not necessarily discrimination. This is a legal test about a very specific act. Discrimination. Not a moral test or honesty test about harmful or unfair events.

In this education case: 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.

*******

As always, we learn from these decisions. The more information we have, the more we can make informed decisions. Sometimes filing a human rights complaint is incredibly helpful and sometimes it is not the best avenue to heal and process stressful events. Also, tribunal members can also make wrong decisions. I think for a lot of people filing complaints, they just can’t tolerate the injustice or unfairness of what they feel has happened, and they are compelled to do something about it. I hope for everyone involved in this case, they are able to heal, find some peace, and move on.

I wonder what happened to the student who was being excluded…

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…

Posted on

Systemic Imperfection

Our systems, organizations, politics, cities, committees, boards, non-profit organizations, and every other team effort is not perfect.

There are gaps and administrative unfairness in every single system. If you ever want to understand why our systems are the way they are, read policy books from Deborah Stone (Eg. Policy Paradox” The Art of Political Decision Making) and you’ll understand how strategic this is from a political point of view. The division of resources is certainly not by accident.

Then focus on the next layer: the individuals.

Humans also work on these teams and people make mistakes. We are not a perfect species by any measuring yardstick. We are flawed and we are constantly learning and growing. We have our own trauma, imperfect childhoods, different brain structures and chemical exchanges, different age development stages, different frameworks within how we see the world, and temporary feelings rising and falling in the mix of every single day. Throw in some egos, status, hierarchy, culture, gender expectations, and all social constructions into the constant movement of social interactions. It can be messy. Let’s say that. I am impressed we are able to communicate and work as well as we do.

If we wait for systems and people to be perfect before we enter them or interact with them, we will be dead before that ever happens.

Our external complaint systems are not perfect.

But, they are all we have.

If we stop engaging with them (meaning filing complaints), we are screwed.

External complaint systems are the only source of outside eyes looking into the school system. They are the only hope at accountability and transparency. No one else has access. No other outside organizations can force them to hand over documents or force them testify. If the school districts didn’t know they existed and didn’t think parents would use them, it would be a free for all. They would be untouchable. I have seen what happens when school employees think they are untouchable. It’s bad.

There would be no OIPC for access to information. There would be no Ombudsperson connected to policy and fairness. There would be no regulatory body for teachers and teacher standards to use. We would have no way to enforce human rights and force schools to provide our kids support. No one to force them to have to justify their actions. No one else is watching. But parents are.

Is everyone’s complaint going to be successful? No. It’s not. There is common sense and then there is the limitations of law and process, with cut off dates and made up rules of trying to put a human experience into a box.

But this is how we push the line. This is how we create human rights law (BC HRT), school policy (through settlement agreements), consent resolutions (TRB complaints), orders (OIPC decisions), directions (Ombudsperson decisions and case summaries), that create tools for change. Parents can actually create these tools to pick at the system by their complaint filing and settlements.

Why on earth this immense responsibility for parents to be THE accountability system is BEYOND me.

So until the government system decides an alternative option to help us in this matter, we are on our own. (Some people think school trustees are this alternative option, but some parents feel that school trustees are just upholding the system and colluding with districts.) I don’t even know if school trustees see themselves as an accountability system to the public. Do they? I know some do… but as a whole?

Parents are powerful. The school system doesn’t want you to know this. They want you to be scared. Fearful of making decisions. Fearful of stepping out of line… and dare I say… being a trouble maker???

I don’t suggest to people that they kill a fly with a house and just start filing complaints over every issue. A lot of the time things can be resolved through internal advocacy going all the way up the chain. It’s more collaborative and can be quicker.

BUT.

If you feel like you are a hamster on a wheel and going absolutely no where. If you think they are not motivated to resolve the issues and are just using delay tactics.

Then something to keep in your back pocket….is the external complaint system.

As we navigate external complaint systems or contemplate entering them, a VERY important truth to understand is liability in education.

Every time we file a complaint, we create data. If government systems don’t hear from parents they think everything is hunky-dory. It also forces the schools to be transparent with these external complaint systems and be examined. If they feel like at any moment they are going to have to justify their decisions, they wont feel like they can get away with stuff in the same way, right from the beginning.

Bellow are some of the decisions that parents have created through filing complaints. I have created a DECISIONS FOR ADVOCACY page under the Education Law tab. We can use these decisions in our advocacy if required. Click the button below.

Thank you parents/caregivers!! Inch by inch, we are making progress. Now we need to take these decisions and use them as our tools. For all of the areas that we still need decisions in, we still have work to do. And they way things are designed, for right now, it’s up to us to do it.

Decisions for Advocacy

Posted on

Does my Child need to Testify?

The lawyers may tell you they are going to put your child as a witness in the hearing, or hint that your child is going to need to testify, as if this is the natural process. No. There is no guarantee. They may be trying to scare you into a settlement. Just because they may say your child will testify, doesn’t mean it will happen. It doesn’t mean it’s even a smart move on their part.

If your child is old enough and wants to testify, their testimony can benefit your case. The lawyers may say that they are going to take a lengthy amount of time to cross examine your child but then cut it short when they realize your child’s testimony is helping you and not them. Children speaking to their experience can be very moving and compelling. Tribunal members can end up connecting with your child as they testify. Not something the school districts lawyers want to have happen.

Them hinting at you that your child is going to need to testify can be the very thing that ends up shooting themselves in the foot.

How it works for hearings at the BC HRT, they typically plan for 2 witnesses per day. One in the morning, one in the afternoon. So, if you have 10 people on your witness list, including yourself, you will need at least 5 days to present your case. However, your testimony can take as long as you like. You can have written notes in front of you. (Other witnesses cannot. But because you are self-representing you are allowed.) If you need a full day to lay out your experience and show all of the emails and evidence you have, then you can take it. You can have as long as you need. Then the respondents will have their own people and will need to count their additional days. That gives you the idea how long you will need for your hearing. Some witnesses need more or less time, based on their role. Some of your witnesses will overlap. You will be able to ask questions to all of their witnesses just like they will be able to question all of your witnesses and you.

There are two education cases where the students have testified that I have found. The bullying case and the meaningful inquiry case. I have talked to many parents across Canada, and I have NEVER heard of the tribunal forcing any student to testify.

The tribunal makes their decisions in the best interest of the child. If your child wants to testify, it has the potential of being a positive experience for them. Being in a hearing, isn’t horrifying to all people. It’s horrifying to the people who do bad things. I couldn’t wait to testify. It took me all day to testify. It was liberating. I got everything out of me and it was witnessed by someone with authority.

The tribunal is very good at making kids feel comfortable and giving them accommodations, etc. The lawyers would look like complete assholes if they weren’t sensitive to your child during cross examination. (And they don’t want to come off as assholes to the tribunal member.) This isn’t like court cases that you see in the movies where people are dramatic. You will be in your own home, and it will be online. Your child can be in cozy clothes. You can be sitting beside your child the whole time. They can have fidget toys or do anything else that makes them comfortable.

When you are preparing for a hearing, you will have a pre-conference hearing where you will be discussing the witnesses and their relevance. I highly suggest you ask for an agenda for any conference hearings. That way the respondents wont be able to spring topics on you without your knowledge and you can do some research in advance and just be prepared. If you don’t want your child to testify, you can make your case. How do you think testifying could possibly harm them? And can evidence be entered and cross examined in other formats by other means? There are hearings that have taken place and the student didn’t testify, for example in this 2024 decision.

Making the decision for your child to testify is a decision you both are going to need to make. Don’t feel pressure from the lawyers, that your child will be forced to do something they don’t want to do. It’s easy for adults to make assumptions, thinking that your child wont want to participate. But, kids want to help out other kids too. They want to make a difference. They may also be angry or upset about the harm they went through and this can be a healing experience for them too. Something for them to look back on and think….wow, I did that. It can be a bonding experience for you both.

Keep in mind that hearings can take 2-3 years from the time a failed settlement meeting happens. Your child will be older and may view things differently then what they do now. Don’t make things an issue, until they need to be. People may think that having all this time is a bad thing, but it can actually work in your favour. The time gives your child some space and time away from the situation. Also, gives you lots of time to prepare.

Posted on

HR Decisions in Year 2025

Here is a list of the BC human rights decisions related to students and education (K-12) that were posted publicly in the year of 2025. Only 2 decisions show parents/caregivers who had legal counsel, the rest were self-representing parents. These decisions are important as we learn how the tribunal will make decisions about similar issues in the future. They also can help us to elevate our advocacy and understand our rights. These complaints become part of the wider data collection on these issues that the BC HRT collects.

This does not reflect the total cases that were navigating the HRT, just ones that had public decisions. Cases that settle at mediation meetings, often do not have decisions attached to them as mediation meetings are part of the early stages of the complaint process.

January 24, 2025

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.

February 4, 2025

Child L (by Mother L) v. BC Ministry of Education, 2025 BCHRT 27

[1]               This is a decision about whether eligibility criteria for a government grant, set out in a regulation, could be a service customarily available to the public.  

February 5th, 2025

The Parent obo the Student v. Meadowridge School Society and another, 2025 BCHRT 29 

[1]               The Parent is the mother of the Student. The Student attended middle school at Meadowridge School Society [Meadowridge]. The complaint alleges that Rhys Clarke, a teacher at Meadowridge, sexually assaulted the Student during an incident in Mr. Clarke’s class, and Meadowridge failed to address the matter appropriately. The complaint says the Student was in a vulnerable position due, in part, to his Chinese ethnicity. The Tribunal accepted the complaint on the grounds of the Student’s race, ancestry, place of origin, and sex.

March 7th, 2025

P (by KD) v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) and another, 2025 BCHRT 62

[2]               P alleges that during the 2019/2020 school year, the respondents did not provide her an appropriate education by refusing her at-home instruction, one-to-one Educational Assistant [EA] support, and not following her Individual Education Plan [IEP]. P also alleges that the Ministry changed the requirements for IEPs which rendered them ineffective. Finally, P alleges that the School District caused her harm by failing to properly address abuse by another student and took her on an inappropriately long walk despite her scoliosis, which caused her pain and swelling.

April 4th, 2025

Child (by Parents) v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2025 BCHRT 85

  Generally, the complaint alleges that the Respondents failed to provide the Child with meaningful and safe access to education. Particularly, the complaint sets out five allegations that the Respondents:

a.      failed to incorporate medically recommended accommodations into the Child’s Individual Education Plan [IEP] in 2019 [IEP Allegation];

b.      failed to consult the Parents in 2018 in formulating the Child’s IEP [Consultation Allegation];

c.      discontinued specialist support for the Child in 2017 [Specialist Support Allegation];

d.      failed to provide the Child with reasonable accommodation to assist them with managing their disabilities [Accommodation Allegation]; and

e.      disciplined the Child in a way that put them at medical risk as a result of their disabilities [Discipline Allegation].  

May 14th, 2025

Parent obo Student v. BC Ministry of Education and another, 2025 BCHRT 112

[1]  The Student is a young Indigenous child who has diagnoses of various mental disabilities. The Parents allege that the School District and the Ministry of Education [Ministry] discriminated against the Student based on her race and mental disabilities when they would not allow her to attend school full-time or participate in school activities with her peers.

No other decisions were posted after the May decision.

We will see what year 2026 brings us….

Here is a page I have created that collects links and decisions for advocacy.

Posted on

Keeping Your Child’s Information Private

There is a way to keep your child’s information private as you go through the BC Human Rights Tribunal process (BC HRT). If you want to request that something specific happen you can email your case manager and they may tell you that you need to submit an application or they may be able to just respond to your request in the email. If you do send a request you must cc: the school districts in your email. Not every application that you submit will have a public decision, but it’s possible that a decision regarding your process/request could be posted on their website. These applications are things like amending your complaint, joining complaints if you file a family status complaint connected to yourself, fast-tracking, etc.

You can apply for your case to be anonymized. The the BC HRT will anonymize a minors human rights complaint automatically anyways as it is part of their rules, but it is always good to communicate your wishes.

Page 3 of their RULES book

Complaints about minors

(7) In an application to limit public disclosure of information that would identify a minor, the
tribunal will presume that the minor’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in access
to the tribunal’s proceedings.

Or if you specifically don’t want the district to be anonymized, it’s good to put this in the application and explain why it is in the public interest for them to be identified. (See below for case example) HINT: The school districts REALLY don’t like to be named. You can use it to you advantage to put pressure on a settlement.

The BC HRT doesn’t really advertise this, but if you don’t want to settle and you want a hearing, you can also apply for a “CLOSED” hearing so that no one from the public attends.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am going to write a blog on this specific topic, but I just want to drop some info. If the school districts lawyers are trying to scare you by saying they are going to force your child to testify and be a witness at the hearing – NICE TRY. Just because they may want them on the witness list, doesn’t mean they are going to get it. The BC HRT makes all of their decisions in the best interest of the child. But the respondents LOVE to dangle this threat as a way to send your protective parent instincts into overdrive. But, more on this later.

How you do either of these options (anonymization and closed hearing) is by filing out an application.

Go to the FORMS page on the BC HRT website.

You will be filling out a 7.1 GENERAL APPLICATION.

You will be asking to anonymize your child’s name. You don’t need to anonymize the districts name, but they will most likely fight for their name to be anonymized too. Their argument is often that it may expose the identity of the child. You can argue back. There are cases where the identity of the child is anonymized and the district is not. Or if that is not something you wish for, you can agree to anonymize the district as well.

Read everything on the form. There is a process that you have to go through before you submit it. You need to contact the school district lawyers and ask them if they agree. They will have to provide you with “their position” on your application. When you email them, I suggest you give them a deadline. Ask them to respond to you within 5 business days.

This is the same form you can ask for a closed hearing. Just tick off OTHER and write “closed hearing” on the PURPOSE OF APPLICATION page. They give you space to answer their questions, but you can always just write “see attached” and then type up your answers. You can submit up to 10 pages.

REMEMBER: They are always going to analyze you through a cost-risk lens. If you become too expensive, they are going to be more encouraged to settle with you. It costs them big money to respond to applications. So if your mediation meeting fails, become expensive.

Here is a list of some decisions around anonymization.

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

[8]               Rule 5(7) presumes that a minor’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in accessing the Tribunal’s proceedings. As such, it is appropriate to limit publication of information that could identify the Student in connection with this complaint.

Mother A obo Child B v. School District C, 2015 BCHRT 64

[21]           Rule 5(7) establishes a presumption respecting minors for good reason. Children are vulnerable, in some cases fragile, and those with disabilities even more so. It is difficult enough growing up in the face of existing peer pressure without having the additional burden of adult-driven issues being superimposed in a public way in their formative years. Moreover, these issues may not be readily understood by other children and used as a tool of ridicule and hurt. While some public exposure is inevitable, broad public exposure through unrestricted publication is neither necessary nor in the child’s best interests. At this stage of the proceedings, I find that the privacy interests of Child B outweigh the interests of the public and Child B’s identity and that of Mother A shall be anonymized.

[27]           I note that Mother A alleges that the complaint and future outcome are specific to the policies and practices of this particular district. Further, she says that understanding which district is involved may be important for the public, or future complainants in School District C or other districts. I find that school districts are large public institutions that touch a broad spectrum of the public. The reasons advanced by Mother A for identifying School District C reflect a legitimacy and the sentiment found in para. 11 of the School District 61 case cited above. In the circumstances as they currently stand, I find that there is nothing that outweighs the public’s interest in knowing the identity of School District C and the open court principle.

[28]           Therefore, I am prepared to grant School District C the requested anonymization for the purposes of only this decision. Unless a further order of the Tribunal is obtained, School District C shall be identified in all subsequent proceedings. If the Respondent School District C finds unique circumstances that weigh in favour of its anonymization, it may reapply for such an order.

Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another, 2024 BCHRT 150

In this case the mother and child wanted to be named. The school did not want to be named. Child was anonymized until she is an adult and then can apply to have her name added. School lost their application and the decision was to name them.

(29) I appreciate that naming the School could make it easier for motivated and diligent people to identify the people who were involved in the events of this complaint. In that respect, my order will not perfectly protect the people involved. However, I find that – unlike the individual educators and staff involved – there is a specific public interest in the identity of the School as a publicly funded institution serving the public: A obo B v. School District 61, 2014 BCHRT 105 at para. 11. I am not persuaded that this public interest is outweighed by the potential that some of the educators may then be identified. There have already been a number of complaints and proceedings involving the educators and staff, and Mrs. Ehmke points out that many people within the community already know about the complaint.

(30) I deny the application to limit publication of the name of the School.

To search up more decisions, here are instructions on how to use CanLii.

Posted on

A Lighthouse to Those at Sea

My wish is to be a lighthouse keeper.
To be steady, strong, and free.
No matter what the weather is outside
I will always remain and be.

There are many adventurers out there
Sailing the uncharted seas
Many of whom I will never meet
But each of us holds a key

We are all pushing the boundaries
Unwilling to accept oppression
We cannot just bow our heads
And be satisfied with the concession

For the people that we fight for
Deserve a fair chance at life
They experience so much struggle
Exposed to too much strife

I keep the lighthouse burning
Steady, strong, and free
And on calm clear nights, I look out
And what oh what do I see

I see so many other lighthouses
And their keepers lighting the way
We turn the darkness into light
By refusing to go away

No matter the weather outside
Steady, strong as can be
Aligned with our integrity
We will always, always be free

Posted on

Defamation. You said what?

I had the wonderful opportunity to attend the defamation lunch and learn put on the PLEO society today. https://www.pacificlegaloutreach.com/initiatives

I recommend it to anyone who is interested. I took notes, and these are them below. Some of the terms I jotted down for future reference, and let me acknowledge that I think this workshop could have gone on for a week, there is just so much to discuss and talk about, so these notes are no way an exhaustive list on the topic.

Hopefully you can understand my notes or some of these terms can help you in your own research or lead you to inquire with legal minds about the topic. As someone who blogs, I find this topic fascinating. I can see how this area of law and the discussions around free speech are just going to intensify. Free speech to me is a VERY worthy conversation.

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

Defamation is an area of law – protecting someone’s reputation who has had bad things said about them. Hatred, ridicule or contempt.

Said something about you, that it’s published, defamatory – something with a real sting to it.

Liable or slander

Oral or written – can take either form

Even if it’s deleted, still repercussions. It wont matter that it’s been deleted.

Defamation law around hundreds of years old

Someone is presumed to have a good reputation. The damage in defamation go to repair the harm in your reputation. You would need to prove your loses, what you lost due to the defamation statements.

Is a statement defamatory. The judge would decide – What does the statement you made actually mean?

The judge would need to decide if it went beyond insult or criticism.

You can have clear defamatory statements or it can be an innuendo.

Social media has been wonderful for defamation lawyers. Social media posts are not personal conversations, they are to the world. Lawsuits are on the rise.

Sometimes defamation lawsuits draw more attention to the statement and can make things worse.

It is not just a person it can also apply to an organization.

The organization can defame or be defamed. The person who said those things, can also be sued along with the organization.

Defenses?

Truth is a defense – the responsibility would be on the defendant (person who is being sued for defamation) is on them to prove that it is true.

Defense of Fair comment – free speech rights.  – matter of public interest

It can’t be said in a malicious purpose. Eg. You got fired, and so you are making a statement

Two types of privelage. Absolute privelage and qualified privelage (moral obligations, etc) Duty to warn

Duty to warn – is protected.

Qualified privelage is very narrow. Saying you were abused in a tweet, wont cover this.

Right to speak vs. Right to keep a reputation

The law does not protect a sexual assault survivor to speak their truth. The survivor can be sued.

The protection of Public Participation Act 2019. PPA – what kind of speech do we want to protect. The legislation is still new. Not enough case law.

Be ready to back up your statements. If you can support it, than you can make it.  Present it as a fair comment.  You can still be sued, even if you have a defense. They can sue you, just to sue you.

Who is your audience, who are you doing this for? Why are you saying this?

Defamatory is very accusatory, pointing fingers as someone specific

An opinion has be to be one that is reasonably held.

Comments meant to be kept in a friends social media group can be shared

Republication – recent case law

You can be liable for republicizing someone else’s comment. One person posted on Facebook and other people commented. The originally poster was found responsible for other people’s comments. Due to – It was the probable consequences of making such a post in the first place.

You can’t control where your posts go.

Term – Fair dealing

Don’t be fearful about commenting, but do be respectful. If you get it wrong, apologize. A comprehensive apology online.  It stops the damages clock.

If you do defame someone, use your words to deescalate and apologize.