#School - Parent Advocacy Tribunal Help (School Advocacy)

March 26, 2026March 26, 2026

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.

March 18, 2026March 18, 2026

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;

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

March 14, 2026June 14, 2026

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:

Human Rights Law – Duty to Accommodate
School Act & Section 11
Teachers Standards
Students rights
Parents rights
Ministry Policy and Orders
School Board Policy & Administrative Procedures – will be posted on your district’s website
Accessibility Legislation – your district will have its accessibility committee posted on the district website.
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?

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.

March 10, 2026March 11, 2026

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.

March 5, 2026March 5, 2026

“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.

February 26, 2026February 27, 2026

Improper Conduct – Hiding Disclosure

There is a new human rights decision out today, and it is not education-related. BUT, there is a part of this decision that I do want to highlight because what this person experiences is something parents need to be aware of. I struggled with disclosure issues. What a fight! Even if they tell you they don’t have documents, make an application anyway! Surprise surprise! It does exist!

Neske v. Sobeys Inc. (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 37

This person was awarded an extra $15,000 for costs due to the respondents withholding evidence weeks before the hearing.

*******

[156] Ms. Neske alleges that Sobeys engaged in improper conduct by failing to disclose material documents until the weeks leading up to the hearing. She submits that during the dismissal application process, Sobeys selectively withheld key documents pertaining to its discussions about restructuring management in the pharmacy department, and that as a result, her complaint could have been unjustly dismissed. She argues that in the circumstances, Sobeys conduct was reprehensible and deserving of a significant award of costs. She seeks an award in the amount of her legal fees up to the date of the application to dismiss, with the actual amount to be agreed on by the parties. Alternatively, she seeks an order of $15,000.

[157] Sobeys says that costs are not warranted in this case. It submits that the threshold for a finding of improper conduct is high and imports a notion of intentional wrongdoing or culpable action which a reasonable person would know is wrong, and which has a significant and detrimental impact on the hearing. It further submits that there was nothing improper about its disclosure in this case and there has not been any prejudice to Ms. Neske. It says that in its decision to deny Sobeys’ dismissal application, the Tribunal highlighted a lack of information about the elimination of the position, and as a result, Sobeys searched for and identified additional documentation which was disclosed in advance of the hearing.

[158] I am satisfied that an award of costs for improper conduct is appropriate in the present case.

********

I had to file so many applications for documents, and then I was getting ridiculous evidence that was just GOLD. Also, I noticed a few months before the hearing, suddenly other documents were being given to me that I was never even aware of. They clearly didn’t want an improper cost awarded for them for only giving them over weeks before the hearing. But if they didn’t give them to me and the hearing occured and it was discovered during questioning that these documents existed, then they’d be in big trouble.

So, what do we do about this?

I have an idea.

This is where we can all work together.

I want to create a list of possible documents parents should request in Freedom of Information Requests or during the document disclosure phase.

Every time I learn of a new possible document, I’ll add it to the list.

I’ll start

Counselling intake notes or intake form
Union meeting notes. (When teachers are in trouble, they have a meeting with the principal and often a union representative)
School-Based Team Meeting Notes
Student File (The office one, counselling file, LSS file)
Work safe incident report form
IEP meeting notes
Employee file (paper and digital)
Complaint file at the Teacher’s Regulation Branch
.

Anything else?

Teachers….. what other kind of documents do you all fill out?

I will start a new page with this list when I get some more info for people to refer back to. Let’s go team! Many hands make light work.

EDIT: Suggestions from others

Threat/violence incident reports

Attendance records with reasons for absence listed (many times being sent home is marked as “parent excused”)

All communication between outside agencies and specialists

Raw scores from any formal or informal assessments, including reading screeners

Raw scores from all standardized assessments

Principal incident logs (often maintained outside the student file)

EA logs or daily support notes

Behaviour tracking forms or data collection sheets

Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) reports

Union grievances

February 22, 2026February 22, 2026

Access to Information in Education – Privacy Rights

Parents in BC are restricted to information that other parents have access to in other provinces in Canada.

Two examples:

Legal fees for human rights complaints
Teachers’ Regulation Branch (TRB) – Ministry of Education
.

Legal Fees

Parents of Carter Churchill won a human rights complaint against the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District (full Case here). They submitted an Freedom of Information request (FOI) and they got the complete breakdown of legal fees. It revealed what they spent their legal costs on to fight a 5-year old Deaf child from access an interpreter in kindergarten – $682 thousand dollars. Here is an article on it.

When I sent the exact same FOI request to my child’s district, I got S.14 – client privilege arguments. I filed an OIPC complaint and the OIPC backed them up. The districts arguments were that the breakdown would reveal legal communications. When I asked OIPC why I couldn’t access the same information that other parents could in another province I was told that the BC privacy laws are different in BC.

If you want to know the legal fees I recommend you go the route of filing an FOI with the Ministry of Finance. Ask for the total costs, not the break down. When you file the FOI tell them you are filing it under S.25 – public interest. If they fight you, you can offer up this case. Order 1728

Ok, now let’s talk about the TRB

Teacher’s Documents – TRB

In Ontario when parents file a complaint against a teacher, the teacher will respond to the complaint. The parents/caregivers get a copy of that. In BC, we do not. You will have no idea what the teacher submitted in their own defense or what they said. In my experience, it’s usually a pack of lies. If you file a FOI request you will get one piece of paper with a section written on it.

There is a new OIPC decision that outlines the legal arguments that BC has that keeps everything a teacher submits away from parental eyes. Order F26-10. The OIPC clearly does not want the Ministry of Education and Child Care filing a Judicial Review. While the parent is going to receive process documents, still nothing. Backed up by BC laws and an adjudicator who doesn’t think the public cares enough about education or the TRB. If anyone or organization wants to fight this, this decision is your stepping stone. It outlines all of the legal issues you are going to need to navigate. This is a stepping stone for anyone who wants to take this issue and elevate their fight.

In the meantime, we can use our knowledge of the system to get access to all of these documents in other ways. That way is the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL. If a mediation meeting fails and you are continuing along in your complaint, you will reach a document disclosure stage. You can file a general application for documents. The school districts lawyers are going to try and persuade you of this. They will tell you that your request is “inappropriate” and send you to the TRB. (By the way – when they tell you what you are doing is inappropriate – you have hit a nerve. You are probably on the right track and they are very nervous about you continuing.) Do not believe them when they tell you to go to the TRB. They know it is a dead end. The evidence that I received getting documents from the TRB was fall of your chair, shocking evidence. Things I wasn’t even expecting or would have thought to ask for. I filed on a group of people and they ended up trying to blame the other person, submitting evidence that the other person was guilty. Beautiful! Thank you very much for that. So, they feel very safe that their documents are going to be protected. Use their false sense of safety. If the lawyers are offering you a settlement agreement you can’t live with, you can let them know that you will be filing an application for TRB documents. You can use the arguments of relevance and credibility of a future witness.

Remember that school districts will never just lay out all of the evidence you need due to their goals of reducing their liability. Also, if you want to ponder over who has all the decision making power in this process, here is blog about this question, the riddle of who is Wizard of Oz pulling all the strings.

Conclusion

BC’s privacy laws are stricter in BC, or the organizations in BC just don’t have a backbone to go up against the government. Either way… not so great for us. But we can use another routes through the maze to get what we want. The more you know about how to navigate all of the external complaint systems, the further you will get.

February 15, 2026February 15, 2026

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

Before you even file a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, you are going to be gathering your evidence while you advocate. Emails are KEY.
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.
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.
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

File a Freedom of Information (FOI) request
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

When you file a human rights complaint, you may want to consider if you want to file Teacher Regulation Branch (TRB) complaints as well.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
****** 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.
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

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.
Count the pages, are there pages missing. Did they remove anything. (I had missing pages)
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

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.
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.
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

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?
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

February 9, 2026February 10, 2026

Riddle: Who has the final decision-making power?

Here is the riddle.

School districts are the “clients” in human rights complaints. They are the ones we are filing against. We write out their names as being the respondents on complaint forms. They are the ones who show up to the hearing as the client. The secretary-treasurer will.
Typically, clients hire lawyers. They are the ones who provide “instructions” to their lawyers. Lawyers can give them advice, but the clients are the ones who have the final say – decide to accept settlement offers or not.
The School Protection Program (SPP) is the insurance for the school district for human rights complaints. They cover all costs, legal fees and settlement payments all paid for by insurance. (paragraph 2) Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No.9), 2025 BCHRT 310
The SPP appoints the lawyers and pays for the legal fees of the lawyers.
The lawyers send their invoices to the SPP to get paid for their work hours by insurance.
So first part of the riddle, who is really the client? The school district or the one who pays the bills?
BUT the SPP will also not agree to pay for their legal fees if a client they are covering for doesn’t accept a reasonable offer. As written in this decision. “within a couple of days I got a call from the insurance company and they said ‘you turned down a very reasonable settlement offer, we’re not going to cover your expenses anymore, you’re on your own.” (paragraph 6 & 7) Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 8), 2025 BCHRT 64. So clients cannot just decide to run parents into the ground without legal reason – or the insurance wont cover.
So who has the final decision making power? The school districts will rely on the lawyers for their legal assessment of whether it is a reasonable settlement or not, or whether there is grounds to keep going and spend more legal fees than the settlement offer. (Insert eye roll) ** This is where it doesn’t make sense to me that an insurance company would go along with this. I take it when this happens it must mean their cost-risk assessment of people is wrong. They underestimate people.
Insurance company relies on the lawyers for their assessment. They have read ALL the emails, know all the details of the case.
The insurance company doesn’t attend the mediation meetings. So a risk analysis is done by who?
Who profits on having as many billable hours as possible? Answer: Lawyers
Partner status in a law firm is partly based on your ability to bring in clients and increase billable hours. You also benefit personally when the law firm does well, beyond just your salary.
Who personally profits from how much law firms make from legal fees? Answer: Partners in law firms.

.
So, who has the final decision making power?

Who contributes their input into the cost-risk analysis of parents?

School districts? – relying on lawyers for their expertise and law analysis and also relying on the SPP for insurance coverage. Doesn’t sound like they are ones with most sway in this decision making process.

Or is the lawyers with partner status? The ones who personally profit from our human rights complaints?

The answer to this riddle is? To a varying degree, all three parties contribute.

I guess if the district just really wanted to settle and have it be over they could or should be able to pull the client card and say, these are my instructions, we want to settle. The lawyers, in theory, would need to do what they are instructed. There isn’t anyone from SPP that shows up to a mediation meeting.

My money is on the ones with the most sway – the lawyers. The Partners. The senior lawyers on the case. The ones who personally profit from the most billable hours.

Anyone else see the conflict here?

OH, and apparently the only ones keeping track of how much legal fees cost is the insurance company and the law firm. Not the school district and not the Ministry of Education.

Anyone else see the additional conflict here?

February 1, 2026February 15, 2026

Emails – Q & A

Emails can be stressful but they are stressful for good reason. They are very important. They are a key tool to your advocacy.

Here is a collection of information that I have either learned from other people who have been advocating in the system for a long time, have learned through research, or from life experience.

Q: How long is it reasonable to wait for an email response?

A: 5 days from someone from the district
3 days from your child’s teacher or Principal
** If it’s time sensitive and you want a faster response – put that in the email

Q: What are some writing tips?

A: Here are some tips:

Use shorter sentences.
Don’t write them a novel if you don’t have to. You want to be concise but still have the details that are needed. After you write it all out, edit it. See what you can remove and reduce. (AI can be helpful for this)
Think of emails as a tool. Quality over quantity. Sending massive amounts of emails are not going to help you. If you overwhelm them with the high volume of emails, they may limit your communication.
Use simple words. Don’t put in fancy language thinking that they will respect you more and are more likely to respond. The goal is clear communication that cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted
Putting a request for a response date is very important as it allows you to advance up the hierarchy if they don’t respond.
Emails are not private. They can be shown to 30 different people and may end up in a tribunal hearing. Follow the expression, “Dance like no one is watching, email like it will show up in court.
Follow the format for writing an email. (see below)
Make sure you have a clear request in your email.

Q: Is there a format to follow for explaining my thoughts?

A: Yes.

I would suggest you follow this format outlined by the Family Support Institute
https://familysupportbc.com/toolkits/school-meetings-how-to-write-an-email-to-call-a-meeting/

If you are not calling a meeting, just leave that paragraph out.

To add to this format: If you are using rights-based advocacy you will want to make sure you do the following.

Clearly identify your child’s disability-related need (Their disability and their unmet need related to their disability)
Explain the harm that you are witnessing or are aware of
Tell them your child is struggling and explain how
Ask them for help

Why? Because of meaningful inquiry. Human rights protection.

Q: I get overwhelmed with emails, how should I handle this?

A: You can have a separate email address just for school communication. That way, you will only read the emails when you are ready and can have a support person with you when you go into your inbox. It also helps with organization. You can have folders for each of the people you talk to, and divide them by years. KEEP EVERYTHING. Even the positive emails can be helpful as you have evidence of what works.

Q: What should my tone be?

A: I don’t want to tone police people, but I can tell you that making accusations, assumptions into their intent, allegations not backed up with evidence, are all ways to make this more adversarial than what may benefit you. I wouldn’t recommend you send emails when you are mad. You can write them out, and then let them sit for a few hours or next day. Sleep on it. Or send it to a friend for feedback. Get an extra pair of eyes on it.

Q: Is it better to email or meet in person?

A: Emails are a very powerful form of documentation and evidence. If you are meeting in person, I highly suggest you summarize the email and send it to them. Ask them if your summary is correct and if you misunderstood anything to respond to the email. You will need email to gather your evidence.