Tag: #School

Posted on

Policy – “Soft Policing”

Policy is known as “soft policing”.

Policy is not law.

It is literally a group of people coming together and making stuff up. Sometimes policy is based on evidence, and sometimes it is not.

School districts have a lot of policies. I highly recommend you go to your school district site and find the policies and the administrative procedures. They may not be located in the same area. Some district websites are easy to navigate, others not so much. It’s worth the hunt. Policy will likely become part of your advocacy at some point.

A huge role for the Board of Education in your district is to create, review and revise policy as needed.

When they update or add a policy, they will, or should, be posting it publicly for public feedback. This will not be an announcement that gets emailed to you. It will take parents/guardians to be alert to these kinds of things being posted on the district website and to follow what is happening in board meetings.

Many districts have an online option for attending board meetings. Which I really like. You can multitask while you have it on in the background. Or if you are finding a part particularly boring, you can turn off the volume. Sometimes board meetings are interesting. Drama ensues. Showing up in person can also be informative. See who talks to whom, and you can feel the energy in the room that you can’t do over video. There are opportunities to have conversations with the trustees during break or after the meeting that can be helpful.

I HIGHLY suggest you get to know your district’s school trustees. These are the people who are creating these policies, bylaws, approving budgets, making section 11 decisions, and overseeing the superintendent and secretary-treasurer. The board appoints these key people to their positions.

If there is a policy that you would like to bring to the board for consideration, you can certainly email them and discuss this with them. Their role is to listen to you. You can suggest amendments to the current policy, and next time they review their polices, you never know, your suggestions might make it in.

By reading up on policy, you may realize there may also be avenues for you to resolve your issues that you didn’t know were an option. For example, the whistleblowing policy. That is for everyone, not just staff. If you have someone in a position of power who is lying to you or being unethical, this is an option for you to consider in reporting it. Especially if you feel that the issues are not being addressed by the district staff. The whistleblowing complaints are reported to the board.

When there isn’t any transparency and people feel untouchable, it can lead to a lot of funky-monkey business in school districts. It is shameful when the system tries to cover it up. I hate to say this to you, especially if you are a new parent to advocacy. Please don’t be naive. This isn’t care-a-lot, and people in education are not sugarplum fairies. Staff have a fiduciary duty to their employers. Some of these people are wolves in sheep’s clothing. As you advocate and navigate the system, you’ll be learning who is who. Some people are genuinely the kindest and most caring people you will ever meet. The others…will become clear.

Something to keep an eye out for…as policy is not law and can be discriminatory.

Also a key learning – The Human Rights Code supersedes policy, when in conflict.

Get to know your school Trustees, their policies, and administrative procedures. If you want to make changes, email away.

Posted on

Participating in the Duty to Accommodate

If you are someone who is asking for accommodations for yourself at work or your child in school, we also have obligations under the Code to follow. If we do not follow this, than our human rights complaints can be dismissed.

Rennie v. BC Ambulance Service, 2025 BCHRT 104

[29] Further, Mr. Rennie obtained a medical letter dated April 13, 2015, from a psychologist. There is no evidence that this letter was provided to BC Ambulance prior to the present complaint proceeding.

[30] In these circumstances, I am persuaded that BC Ambulance is reasonably certain to prove at a hearing that Mr. Rennie failed to participate in his accommodation process by not communicating with BC Ambulance, and its obligation to accommodate came to an end. Therefore, Mr. Rennie’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of succeeding.

This complaint was dismissed.

We have to participate. This falls under the “Duty to co-operate in good faith”

Both parties are expected to do this. Both sides need to communicate.

If the school is ignoring you, keep all those emails that you didn’t get a response to. Those will also be important.

And…

If the school is communicating with you. You can’t ignore them either.

To read about the expectations and responsibilities of the duty to accommodate process read here

Some parents feel that the communication they receive from the school is meant to poke them or bait them. I highly suggest you read 5 Rules on How to be Untouchable. Also keep in mind the communication between the parties needs to be in good faith, so if you feel there is anything sneaky going on, always keep the emails.

The point of the communication and co-operation needs to be focused about figuring out which accommodations work and which ones don’t. Accommodations don’t need to be ideal or perfect, just “reasonable” enough to provide the person with “a ramp”.

So, provide documentation. Communicate in good faith. And one more extension from this topic for parents in education is the Duty to Facilitate. Very similar to this case, but for parents. Failure to facilitate a school decision can lead to your human rights complaint being dismissed.

Knowledge is power.

Know your rights and responsibilities under the Duty to Accommodate.

It’s a two-way street.

Posted on

New HR Decision (Section 11 & Timeliness)

ooohhhh gather around for this one!

Lots of interesting learnings in this decision.

Thank you, thank you, thank you to the parent who brought this decision forward.

It was a win for them personally and a win for us for this analysis.

Here we go. This is an exclusion case & Indigenous rights.

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

There is a lot in here, so I am going to list the important parts that I see.

  1. Ministerial order analysis
  2. Section 11 appeal was dismissed, HR complaint continues
  3. Timeliness application
  4. Ministry of Education dismissed

Respondents Defence Strategy

[10] The School District says that in April 2019, it decided to place the Student on a partial day program pursuant to the Ministry’s Special Needs Students Order, M150/89 [ Ministerial Order ], which states:……

(This policy is used as the school district’s defence to the exclusion in this case.)

[12] In or around 2019, the Student was diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Combined [ ADHD-C ], anxiety, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder [ ODD ].

[13] The School District says the Ministerial Order clearly applied in the Student’s circumstances. It says that shortly after the Student started kindergarten, her teacher raised concerns regarding some of the Student’s behaviours related to self-regulation and ability to follow expectations in the classroom, which indicated a need for extra support. The School District says these behaviours escalated during the period of January to March 2019, and included task avoidance, touching others, eloping from the classroom, disrupting the class environment, being unable to follow simple adult directions, and running through the school. In response, the School District says it began implementing more interventions and support for the Student. However, despite these additional supports, the School District says the Student’s behaviour continued to escalate to the point that neither her educational needs, nor those of her classmates, were being met.

The parent made a section 11 appeal

18] The parties agree that the Parent went through the following steps of the appeal procedure:

a. Step 1: appeal to the school principal who upheld the decision to place the Student on a partial day program.

b. Step 2: appeal to the Assistant Superintendent, Learning Services for the School District, who upheld the school principal’s decision.

c. Step 3: appeal to the Superintendent of Schools, who upheld the Assistant Superintendent’s decision.

d. Step 4: appeal to the Board of Trustees for the School District. The Board issued its decision on November 28, 2019, stating that they did not deem it appropriate to require that the Student be immediately returned to full-time attendance at school.

This is SUPER important – take a look at the reason for the appeal not being upheld

[20] The Superintendent of Appeals summarily dismissed the appeal concerning s. 2(2)(f), and an adjudicator rendered a decision dismissing the appeal under s. 2(2)(b) finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Student had not been suspended from school [ Ministry Appeal Decision ].

Because the student hadn’t been suspended!!

They do this a lot!

This is VERY important learning for us.

Ministry of Education – Dismissed

So the parent filed against the Ministry of Education as well. They were dismissed from the case. No surprises here. We have seen this over and over.

[31] The Ministry says there has been a clear legislative choice, as set out in the School Act , to divide the roles and responsibilities for K-12 education in BC between the Ministry and the School District. The services the complaint claims the Ministry ought to have provided have not been delineated as within the scope of the Ministry’s jurisdiction and/or authority and would involve an inappropriate intrusion into the role and responsibilities of the School District.

[32] Further, the Ministry says there is no evidence that it had any involvement in the decisions or actions related to the Student’s educational program. The Ministry provides funding and oversight at a high level with respect to K-12 education.

Ministerial Order does not excuse them from human rights process

Now this is SUPER INTERESTING!

[38] The School District argues that the allegations in the complaint fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Specifically, the School District says the complainant is improperly attempting to challenge the validity if the Ministerial Order through the Tribunal’s process. The School District notes that one of the remedies sought in the complaint is “changes made to the School Act to protect children who have special needs,” which is beyond the Tribunal’s authority. The School District says it has the legal authority to put students on a partial day program pursuant to the Ministerial Order, under section 75 and 168(2)(t) of the School Act . In this case, the School District says that the Student demonstrated behaviour which met the criteria for a partial day program as set out in the Ministerial Order.

[39] I agree with the School District that the Tribunal does not have the authority to overturn the Ministerial Order or to find the Ministerial Order itself invalid. Similarly, the Tribunal cannot order that changes be made to the School Act . However, I am not persuaded that the allegations in the current complaint are outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

See what I mean by the respondents will always have an argument.

The stuff they come up with is fascinating.

I gotta hand it to them, they are creative.

The tribunal’s response was this:

[40] Although reforms to the School Act are raised in the complaint as a potential remedy, I read the allegations as encompassing concerns about the manner in which the Ministerial Orders were applied in these circumstances, and the impact on the Student as an Indigenous child with disabilities, rather than the validity of the Ministerial Orders themselves. This is not a complaint challenging the non-discretionary application of legislative criteria, for example. The determination of the “educational needs” of a student with special needs or other students, as well as the appropriate alternative programming for a child with special needs, per the Ministerial Order, are discretionary decisions made by teachers or other School District personnel. These decisions, if influenced by the protected characteristics of an affected student, are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review.

[43] I do not agree with the School District’s characterization of this issue as one of jurisdiction. Rather, it is part of the human rights analysis the Tribunal must undertake in any case and would more appropriately be raised under s.27(1)(b) or (c) of the Code . Nevertheless, I consider whether the allegations against the School District raise an arguable contravention of the Code under s. 27(1)(g) analysis below.

[44] Accordingly, I deny the School District’s application under s. 27(1)(a) of the Code .

Woohoo!

Now, another benefit of this decision is that the respondents know that this argument wont fly with the tribunal. So, this case helps to whittle down their arguments. That is very good.

AND if this wasn’t interesting enough, we even get a timeliness application.

Timeliness Application

[50] I am satisfied in the current circumstances that the allegations form a continuing contravention, and the most recent act of alleged discrimination occurred within one year of the filing of the complaint. I am further satisfied that the allegations pass the “arguable contravention test.”

What is a continuing convention of the code?

[47] A complaint is filed in time if the last allegation of discrimination happened within one year, and older allegations are part of a “continuing contravention”: Code , s. 22(2); School District v. Parent obo the Child , 2018 BCCA 136  at para. 68  . A continuing contravention is “a succession or repetition of separate acts of discrimination of the same character” that could be considered separate contraventions of the Code , and “not merely one act of discrimination which may have continuing effects or consequences”: Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57 at para. 23  ; School District at para. 50  .

Here are some important allegations that give us a peek into what the parent was dealing with. Always know with these decisions, we aren’t getting the full picture. Decisions are written up to only include the information that is needed for the decision. There is ALWAYS more to the story.

a. February 1, 2019: The Student was put on partial days of school and was not allowed to participate in school activities or be in attendance with her peers;

b. March 1, 2019: The previous vice principal said: “it just gets to a point in the day where we just don’t want to deal with [the Student] anymore”;

c. April 1, 2019: The Parent was called to the school to pick up the Student because “she was having trauma triggered behaviours and several school staff including the principal, vice principal, and EAs had her cornered in the classroom and she was scared, trapped, and in distress;

d. June 1, 2019: The principal said to the Parent: “have you thought about transferring her to a different school?”;

e. June 1, 2019: The Student was separated from her class and was not allowed to be in a classroom with other children;

f. August 1, 2019: The previous Assistant Superintendent said school staff do not want to work with the Student because she is a “dirty girl”;

g. September 1, 2019: “Step 1” meeting with the principal to appeal the decision not to allow the Student in school full time – denied;

h. September 1, 2019: “Step 2” meeting with the Assistant Superintendent to appeal the decision not to allow the Student in school full time – denied;

i. November 1, 2019: “Step 3” meeting with Superintendent of Schools to appeal the decision not to allow the Student in school full time – denied;

j. November 26, 2019: “Step 4” meeting with Board of Trustees to appeal the decision not to allow the Student in school full time – denied.

In conclusion – public interest too!

[66] For these reasons, I find that the complaint is timely. Had I reached a different conclusion, I would have still found that the public interest favours accepting this complaint. The education system has been identified as a common area of human rights concern for Indigenous children: BC Human Rights Tribunal, (2020) “Expanding Our Vision: Cultural Equality and Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights” at p. 27; Ontario Human Rights Commission, (2018) “To dream together: Indigenous peoples and human rights dialogue report” at p. 40. Courts and Tribunals have taken notice that Indigenous women and girls have been, and continue to be, particularly subject to hurtful biases, stereotypes and assumptions, including that they are “unintelligent” or “people of low or bad character not deserving of the same respect, humanity and dignity as others”: R. v Zakuti , 2021 BCSC 2253 at para. 25; Lindsay v. Toronto District School Board , 2020 HRTO 496 at para. 23. Here, the Student as an Indigenous girl who has been denied full access to the public education system, requires that this complaint be situated in its full socio-historical context. The Code ’s purpose of identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination protected by the Code is served by this complaint being heard at a hearing on the merits: s. 3(d).

And here is this beautiful statement

Dismissal denied – Complaint Proceeding

[68] I deny the application to dismiss the complaint against the School District. These allegations will proceed to a hearing.

I really encourage you to read the case in full. There are a lot of interesting details in there.

Due to the parent’s persistence in bringing this case forward, we have some very interesting legal analysis that are advancing the human rights code. This decision is now an advocacy tool and we are learning about what we need to do.  The piece about appeals being denied around suspensions is very interesting to have this documented.

It would be interesting to see a section 11 appeal done if the school refuses to log it as a suspension. Topics to discuss amongst education advocates, the importance of exclusion being labelled a suspension.

A big thank you to this parent’s advocacy.

Posted on

What is Rights-Based Advocacy?

This is my personal understanding and definition of rights-based advocacy. I would answer that question by saying,

“Rights-based advocacy is when you advocate through the lens of the human rights code, use various legal authorities and policies to support your advocacy, and are communicating to the school your child’s unmet disability-related needs. We then advocate for the school to remove the barriers our child is experiencing so they can access an equitable education.” 

For this blog, I am going to focus on the second part.  

Rights-based advocacy doesn’t just include policy and law, but we need to be able to communicate to the school that our child has disability-related needs, and that they are experiencing barriers.

Now, the bottom line is that this isn’t really our responsibility to figure this stuff out. It’s actually the schools, and this responsibility is connected to multiple human rights decisions.

However, teachers aren’t trained in every disability and every combination of disabilities, and we know our kids. This is the collaboration part of the accommodation part. They have a duty to consult with us. We can contribute and assist them in creating an effective IEP by helping them identify our children’s disability-related needs and help focus their thinking on being able to identify barriers so they can make a plan on how to remove them.  

People don’t naturally think in this way, so this is a skill we need to learn as well and help our kids’ teachers to think this way too.

The system needs a lot of work, but it’s not going to overhaul itself tomorrow. Today we aren’t living in our dream education fantasy land, we are living in a chronically underfunded resource constrained system with high rates of burn out.  So given the cards that we have been delt, what is the best we can do in this situation to support our children in school?

Whatever situation our child is struggling with in school we need to ask ourselves some questions.

  1. Is there an unmet disability-need here? (They could be experiencing all sorts of unmet needs, It may not be necessarily connected to their disability)
  2. If it is connected to their disability, what is the unmet need?
  3. What is the barrier preventing this unmet need being met?

Now let’s apply this to an example.

Ryan has ADHD. Ryan tends to be more distracted, moving around a lot at the end of the day, and is engaging in social behaviours that other students in the class don’t like. He is taking their pencils and erasers and hiding them, and is saying things (teasing/taunting) that evokes a reaction from them that is negative. This is consistent every day.

When the teacher relays this information to the parent, they think about it and later send an email to the school with their thoughts.

The parent first wonders what the disability-related needs could be related to this situation. People with ADHD need more movement, do better with creative hand on tasks, and struggle sitting. It can be physically painful for them to sit. Their bodies will force them to move. People with ADHD do very well on tasks they are interested in and it is extremely difficult to focus on tasks you have no interest in. They also can require more mental stimulation. Kids with ADHD also have higher relationship needs and connecting with their teacher so they can learn will be more important to them.

They think about these disability related needs and wonder how much movement Ryan is getting during the day, and why they are struggling more so in the afternoon. Their curiosity is that they are wondering if Ryan has been sitting to much during the day and is getting restless and bored with too much pen to paper work. Ryan is then doing things that they find are more mentally stimulating and creating drama in the class is more interesting than doing schoolwork.

Typical classrooms don’t fit the needs of a lot of kids with ADHD. The barrier could be a personal physical barrier – that he is forced to sit too long. The next barriers could be informational or communication – he may not understand the assignments or it fit how he processes information. Classroom teacher management could be the barrier – he finds the teacher too strict and after listening to this all day his more anxious and so he is distracting himself with other things.  It could be he is not interested in what he is working on, and his education isn’t hands on enough and too much pen to paperwork. It could be a relational barrier – he isn’t connected to his teacher and thinks his teacher doesn’t like him so he disconnects more at the end of the day wanting to leave and wish he wasn’t there. It could be an attitudinal barrier or teacher philosophy barrier – that they value pen to paper work over other ways of learning. It could be many barriers. It’s hard for us to know what the barriers are because we are not in school. So this is where communicating with our child’s teacher is going to be very important and to bring up the idea of barriers and trying to brainstorm together what the possible barriers could be.

Could creating more scheduled movement breaks during the day, replacing some of the written assignments with more hands on creative projects that are led by him decrease some of the behavoiurs we don’t want to see and improve his focus to help him last all day? Could the teacher making an effort to check-in with him more often during the day help with building the relationship?

We won’t really know what will work or what won’t work until we try it. We know our kids, but we don’t know what they are like in an education setting 5-days a week when we aren’t in the room and they are on their own. The environment they navigate in school to survive the day and home is completely different.

Even being aware of all of our child’s potential disability-related needs will most likely require us to do quite a bit of research and really know and understand our child’s disability. And then we need to consider their unique personality traits and who they are as people. Disabilities don’t present themselves exactly the same in every person. Disability is also fluid and what a person has capacity for on one day wont necessarily be consistent for all days. No wonder everyone is confused and accessibility can be a struggle.

The more we are informed, the more we can effectively advocate for our child.

For more information on types of barriers and accessibility law, please read my blog Barriers, Barriers, Barriers.

Posted on

Co-parenting with the Government

The topic of the right to religious freedom has come up a lot. This is outside of my lane of disability writing, but I am surprised by how many parents contact me about this issue, so here is a blog on it.

I want to offer two cases that I think are very important.

E.T. v. Hamilton-Wenworth District School Board, 2017 ONCA 893

This is a case about a parent who didn’t agree with sex education, etc, being taught in school and felt it was in conflict with their right to religious freedom.

*******

[40]      E.T. cannot, by virtue of his religious beliefs, insist that a non-denominational public school board restructure its inclusive and integrated program, designed to meet its statutory objective of ensuring a respectful and accepting climate for all children, so that he can ensure that his own children are not exposed to any views that he does not accept. Nor do I accept E.T.’s suggestion that the Board could or should ensure that discussion of matters such as sexual orientation and gender identity are discussed purely as matters of fact rather than as matters of “value judgment”. The Board has a statutory mandate to provide an inclusive and tolerant educational environment, one that respects the principles of equality enshrined in s. 15 of the Charter. Equality, inclusivity and acceptance of difference are values, not facts, and it is unrealistic to expect teachers to provide a learning environment that is truly welcoming to all students in a value-free manner.

*******

So what brought on this decision?

Here was the parents request:

*******

[2]         The appellant advised the Board that his religious beliefs require him to shelter his children from what his religion regards as “false teachings”. He provided the Board with a standard form list of topics that included matters such as “moral relativism”, “environmental worship”, “instruction in sex education”, and “discussion or portrayals of homosexual/bisexual conduct and relationships and/or transgenderism as natural, healthy or acceptable”. He asked the Board to provide him with advance notice of any classroom instruction or discussion of these issues so that he could decide whether or not to withdraw his children from those classes or activities.

********

This was the Boards response to his request.

*******

[3]         The Board offered to exempt the appellant’s children from the “Healthy Living” strand in the elementary program, which is offered as a discrete part of the curriculum and involves education on human development and sexual health. However, the Board explained to the appellant that its Equity Policy aims to provide an integrated secular and respectful learning environment that does not discriminate against any child. The Board’s program aims to promote a positive and inclusive environment that accepts all pupils, including those of any sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The Board advised E.T. that, given the integrated nature of its program and the generality of the items on his list, it was neither practical nor possible to comply with his request for prior notification of any time one of the items on his list would arise for discussion in the classroom. The Board also expressed the concern that if E.T.’s children were required to leave the classroom every time one of these topics came up for discussion, the Board’s policy of providing an inclusive and non-discriminatory program would be undermined.

*******

The reality is that when we send our children to a public school, we are co-parenting with the government. And the government has the final say. If you want 100% control over your child’s education, don’t send them to a public school. Education is a government service that is for all children, and the government and society have goals for the next generation. If equality and inclusivity conflict with your religious beliefs, you file a human rights complaint against a public school citing religion as your protected ground, you will probably get it dismissed. Schools are legislated to provide an inclusive and tolerant learning environment.

“The Board has a statutory mandate to provide an inclusive and tolerant educational environment, one that respects the principles of equality enshrined in s. 15 of the Charter.”

I also give you this case

Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002 SCC 86

This is a case about parents’ religious objections to 2SLGBTQIA+ storybooks. The school board’s decision was not to approve books for use in kindergarten and grade 1 for fear of the parents’ religious concerns.

The court overturned the board’s decision because it conflicted with the statutory obligation that public schools have in British Columbia to separate religion from state affairs.  

******

“The B.C. School Act confers on the Minister of Education the power to approve basic educational resource materials to be used in teaching the curriculum in public schools, and confers on school boards the authority to approve supplementary educational resource material, subject to Ministerial direction.  A Kindergarten‑Grade One (“K‑1″) teacher asked the Surrey School Board to approve three books as supplementary learning resources, for use in teaching the family life education curriculum.  The books depicted families in which both parents were either women or men — same‑sex parented families.  The Board passed a resolution declining to approve the books.  The Board’s overarching concern, as found by the trial judge, was that the books would engender controversy in light of some parents’ religious objections to the morality of same‑sex relationships.  The Board also felt that children at the K‑1 level should not be exposed to ideas that might conflict with the beliefs of their parents; that children of this age were too young to learn about same‑sex parented families; and that the material was not necessary to achieve the learning outcomes in the curriculum.”

The Result:

“The Board’s decision is unreasonable because the process through which it was made took the Board outside its mandate under the School Act.  First, the Board violated the principles of secularism and tolerance in s. 76 of the Act.  Instead of proceeding on the basis of respect for all types of families, the Board proceeded on an exclusionary philosophy, acting on the concern of certain parents about the morality of same‑sex relationships, without considering the interest of same‑sex parented families and the children who belong to them in receiving equal recognition and respect in the school system.  Second, the Board departed from its own regulation with respect to how decisions on supplementary resources should be made, which required it to consider the relevance of the proposed material to curriculum objectives and the needs of children of same‑sex parented families.  Third, the Board applied the wrong criteria.  It failed to consider the curriculum’s goal that children at the K‑1 level be able to discuss their family models, and that all children be made aware of the diversity of family models in our society.  Instead, the Board applied a criterion of necessity, which was inconsistent with the function of supplementary resources in enriching children’s experience through the use of extra materials of local relevance.  The Board erred in relying on concerns about cognitive dissonance and age‑appropriateness which were foreclosed by the curriculum in this case.” 

*******

Our society needs to stay the course and fight for an inclusive and equitable society for all people and especially for marginalized groups with deep historical roots in oppression. Public schools are essential in socializing the next generation towards inclusion.

On October 13th 2025 The Tyee posted an article written by Ximena Gonzalez titled: “Inside the Right-Wing Attack on Alberta’s Public Education: MAGA’s Project 2025 has become a blueprint for undermining Canada’s schools in the name of profit and privilege.“

If anyone has come across other cases that they feel are important to this topic, or are newer, I would love it if you could email me and let me know what they are.

kimbpath @ gmail.com

Posted on

Fairness at the BC Human Rights Tribunal

There are a lot of people self-representing themselves in many legal avenues. Small claims courts, family law, and residential tribunals are just to name a few. Most people navigating the human rights tribunal are self-represented as well.

What all these legal avenues have in common is that they are swamped with work, backed up, and everyone in these systems experiences way longer delays than anyone should ever have to experience. Navigating the human rights tribunal system has taught me patience and the art of waiting like no other experience has or would.

Fairness for a self-represented person is very important. We always want to make sure we are experiencing a fair process, especially when we are in an adversarial legal situation against lawyers. Already, it feels unfair. Because it is. So the process becomes extra important. The term you want to research is “procedural fairness”.

Tribunal members, adjudicators and judges are very used to dealing with the self-represented litigant vs. lawyer situations. This happens A LOT! To start out with, between 50-80% of the people are self-representing, depending on the area of law. That is already incredibly high. Then, of the self-representing litigants in this study “89.3% of respondents said that the other side in their case was represented by counsel, while 10.6% percent stated that the other side was also self-representing.” (p. 6) Wow, so most people are representing themselves in legal proceedings and most of the time they are up against lawyers.

There is a lot of case law already on trying to ensure a fair process.

There are cases that will point this out, and I encourage you to earmark these and use them just in case you feel you need them. There are lots on the procedural fairness page on the BC HRT below.

Here is one example of the HRT bending to ensure fairness:

Teacher v. School District and others, 2025 BCHRT 179

[3]               The Teacher provided further evidence and argument in her Form 5 – Time Limit Reply, which I decided to consider because she is self-represented and should be given some latitude in raising new allegations and arguments in reply. In fairness to the Respondents, I considered their further submissions responding to the Teacher’s reply. Finally, I considered the Teacher’s reply to the Respondent’s further submissions as a matter of fairness.

Here is another case regarding making submissions

Taylor v Mallany, 2019 NLCA 25

[24]      At paragraph 53 of the decision, Green J.A. notes that the Principles impose responsibility on judges, court officials, and members to the Bar to “ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment by the court” which includes “opportunities for all persons to understand and meaningfully present their case.” And further at paragraph 54, he suggests that the Principles should be treated as having some legal effect:

The Right to Make Submissions

[26]      A fundamental element of the right to be heard is the right of a party to present their case to the decision-maker.

Procedural Fairness at the HRT

Here is the page on procedural fairness for the BC Human Rights Tribunal. I encourage you to read this if you are going to be navigating the process.

Here are some things that I have learned:

  1. If you are having meetings, you can ask for an agenda to be created so that you know what to expect and can do some research beforehand to prepare for the meeting
  2. ALWAYS ask questions. If you think something is fishy, ask! You have a right to ask questions.
  3. Push the line. If you think something isn’t fair, say so. People can’t read your mind and you are the one with all of the information about your situation. These systems aren’t designed for anyone in particular, so if your situation doesn’t fit the mold, speak up. Always ask for something that you want. If they say no, then you at least got your answer. Don’t assume the answer will be no.
  4. Lawyers aren’t allowed to take advantage of you becuase you are self-representing, so if you they are messing with you, you can call them on it by filing an improper conduct complaint with the HRT or file a complaint with the law society.

Here are some of my tips for navigating the HRT.

The tribunal members have their hands tied in many ways, but I can tell you, I have noticed when they are still able to stay in their lane, uphold case law, they will be flexible to ensure fairness to both sides. Which I have appreciated.

The HRT is a legal process. It’s a legal test. Doesn’t mean your experience didn’t happen.

Like any self-representing person, reading case law is a great place to learn about law. Here are the instructions to navigate Canlii. There are lots of great YouTube videos for people self-representing.

And for those who are interested, here is a fascinating report on self-represented litigants in Canada.

Posted on

Wait Time for External Complaint Systems

Filing external complaints can take a long time BUT there are a few options to help speed things up.

There are a lot of people filing complaints. Some of them are about being overcharged on bills from the government, to city bylaws, to very serious, immediate risks related to shelter. There are a large variety of types of complaints. For complaints that involve children who are currently experiencing harm, there are ways to speed up the process.

Ombudsperson BC

So how long does it take? According to their annual report 2023-2024 p. 99

53% of the files were closed within 30-90 days.

98% of the files were closed within one year.

What many people don’t know about is the early resolution option. They have an early resolution team. “Early Resolution team can quickly resolve
a complaint by doing an expedited investigation of the public body the complaint is about.” (p. 19) If you are currently dealing with issues, like the school is ignoring you, then this can be a quick intervention to get the conversation flowing again.

I highly encourage you to ask if this is an option. Especially if your issue is time-sensitive.

Teachers Regulation Branch

This process is currently at 10-12 months for everything to be completed. 3-5 days for your complaint to be accepted and sent out to the educator.

If you have an urgent physical or psychological safety concern about an education staff person, you will get a faster response from the Superintendent than you will through the TRB branch.

BC Human Rights Tribunal

Acceptance of complaints is currently at 12-18 months. On their automatic email response, they state:

“The tribunal is completing its review of complaints filed in 2023. We expect to begin reviewing cases filed in 2024 in the fall of 2025”

Now, before you fall off your seat, let me explain the fast-tracking option.

You can apply to fast-track your complaint if it’s urgent. An example listed on the BCHRT website fast-tracking page is this:

“The complaint is about a child’s education. The child will not graduate this year, without a fast solution.”

So it needs to be something that your child is experiencing harm with NOW. Like exclusion, or not getting their accommodations now. If you pulled your child and they are at a different school and you just filed about discrimination they experienced but are no longer experiencing, unfortunately, you will need to go through the long wait.

Fast-tracking is about speeding up the process at any time during your complaint. So you could file the fast-tracking application when you file your human rights complaint, or if you are in the process and needs become urgent, you can still file a fast-tracking application at any time.

When you file a fast-tracking application, and it gets accepted as that, they aren’t kidding. Things move fast. It’s days or a couple of weeks till you will find out.

Here is the page about fast-tracking. You will need to read this page to know how you will need to make your argument. You will be filing out a general application form. On the home page, they have the FORMS tab and you will be filing out the 7.1 general application form. Fast-tracking is on the list that you tick off.

I encourage people to consider the fast-tracking option. The worst thing will be you will be told no. But you may be surprised by how fast and willing they are to accept your application when it comes to children and education.

OIPC

It will be about 3-5 months before you are connected to an investigator. It can take about a month to find out if your complaint has been accepted. If your case goes to an adjudicator, it can take about a year from the time you are told it is moving onto the next step. Though for your file to reach an inquiry, it’s not too common.

There isn’t a fast-tracking option that I am aware of, but if you urgently need this information, always ask.

Section 11 Appeal

This is an internal complaint system, as you are appealing a decision made by the district to the Board of Education. But this process has a firm timeline attached to it.

From the School Act

11 (7)A board must

(a)make a decision under this section within 45 days of the date on which the board receives the appeal, and

(b)promptly report that decision to the person making the appeal.

** Always Ask

The external complaints systems are not always processing urgent complaints, or complaints for children or vulnerable people. One complaint I read about was about someone’s neighbour doing something they didn’t like.

Complaints that involve children in education, especially if the harm is continuing, require a faster reaction. Always ask. Always express the urgency of what you are dealing with. Ombudsperson and the BC Human Rights Tribunal both have processes to prioritize more urgent requests.

I find the wait time for these processes are currently working at to be a barrier in itself. Access delayed is access denied. The wait times can be daunting for some people. The BC HRT is currently working on how to speed up their process, so hopefully, we will see some movement.

If your issue is time sensitive, when you file your complaint with any of these complaint systems, highlight that it is time sensitive and ask them if there are any ways to speed up the process.

Posted on

Amending (Improving) a Complaint

I wrote my second human rights complaint at 4 am after very little sleep, was raging mad and didn’t look at it again until document disclosure time. Then I realized, opps! I need to amend my complaint. I don’t recommend you write your complaints at 4am. Lesson learned. Scream into a pillow and let it sit for a bit.

This is the second time I have amended my original complaint. After consulting with a lawyer at BC Human Rights Clinic, for the first human rights complaint I filed, I realized that details should be added, and so I amended my complaint to add “particulars” and not widen the scope (how big) the complaint was. It was easily accepted.

With my second human rights complaint, I was widening the scope, so it involved a formal application process, and the respondents could respond.

People are often afraid of missing something when they write their complaints, and I highly suggest you write a rough draft and make an appointment with the BC Human Rights Clinic or Disability Alliance. They are booking their appointments 2-3 weeks in advance. Well worth the wait. So if you are impulsive like me, sit on your hands and don’t push the send button quite yet until you get an appointment. But even if you do, it’s not the end; you can always apply to amend the complaint later.

If you do ever want to amend your complaint, another good-to-know is how the tribunal views self-represented people.

Many different types of vulnerable people file complaints, ranging from all sorts of situations. I think the public would be surprised to learn that many people are filing complaints and self-representing themselves against the government from prison, with no access to the internet and limited access to legal research tools.

This case isn’t an education case, but even non-education cases have jewels of information for us to learn from.

This case, by the way, is an incredibly important decision and has a lot of content on the impacts of colonialism. For parents filing complaints on behalf of their kids, this is the section that is good to know. You can use this case and quote these paragraphs in your amendment.

Ms. B v. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Criminal Records Review Program), 2025 BCHRT 185

********

[116]       I acknowledge the Ministry’s argument that Ms. B gave limited information in her complaint about her Indigenous identity. Her complaint is one that could be described as arriving at the Tribunal’s gate “imperfectly brought,” as discussed by the BC Supreme Court in Lord:

“Within the human rights process, applicants are vulnerable when filing a complaint about a human rights violation which they believe has occurred. They may not know how to file their complaint in such a way that it will be heard, or in what form evidence is received, believed, or weighed by the Tribunal. Self-represented litigants … face significant barriers in bringing a claim of discrimination: para. 36.”

[117]       In Lord, the Court cautioned against winnowing out complaints that are imperfectly brought, and may require more work to comprehend, but likely contain allegations of merit:para. 38. I find that caution applicable here.

[118]       Ms. B filed her complaint as a self-represented party. The evidence before me points to her vulnerability as a person trying to reintegrate into society, while addressing the impacts of spending much of her life in prison, including long periods in solitary confinement. In her interview with the Criminal Records Review Program Investigator, Ms. B said: “I don’t even know how to hug after so many years in isolation”: Deroche Affidavit, Exhibit A, p. 20.

[119]       She filed her complaint at a time when she was adhering to parole conditions, had little to no income, and was focused on securing employment to support herself. I take from these circumstances that Ms. B faced barriers in filing her complaint at a time when she was self-represented and especially vulnerable. She was vulnerable as a low-income parolee trying to find her footing in society after so many years in prison. As an Indigenous woman, she is a member of a group who experiences persistent patterns of inequality and discrimination. She is vulnerable in the sense that she is vulnerable to those larger forces.

[120]       Within this context, Ms. B’s complaint could be said to be imperfect. She took up only three pages answering the relevant questions in the complaint form in a succinct manner……

*********

Just some added info: You have 5 pages to add to your complaint in addition to the form.

If you are a parent who is self-representing, it may be helpful to add some social context to your application to amend the complaint and explain why at the time of writing the complaint, it came out in the form that it did. If you weren’t able to have a lawyer review it, you can explain why not.

Social context items can be your income, protected characteristics, employment, family status responsibilities, education level, and other issues that create barriers to your ability to write a well-written complaint without access to legal support.

** When you make applications, not all decisions become public. Only certain ones that advance The Code, or are important for the public to be aware of will be posted.

Here are some cases that involve amending a complaint.

Warford v. Board of Education of School District No. 41 (Burnaby), 2024 BCHRT 322

Pausch v. School District No. 34 and others, 2008 BCHRT 154

Posted on

New Teachers Regulation Branch Consent Resolution – Physical Contact

There is a new TRB consent resolution posted, and unless there is something that I think is relevant, I don’t blog about it.

BUT this one is VERY interesting

And here is why. Get a load of this!

From the decision

*******

14. In determining that a reprimand and coursework is an appropriate consequence, the Commissioner considered the following factors:

a. Schubert’s actions in physically blocking Student A escalated the situation.

b. Schubert made physical contact with Student A when it was unnecessary for safety.

***********

Hold the phone.

We are being told by the TRB that if any teacher uses physical contact that escalates a situation and it was unnecessary for safety, they could have a successful TRB complaint against them?

Good to know!

There are situations where adults are physically intervening when safety is not the issue, but as a way to control behaviour, and situations escalate because of it.

Here is your advocacy tool that supports this as wrong, against the Teacher’s Standards and subject to discipline.

Save this decision!

Save. This. Decision.

https://teacherregulation.gov.bc.ca/documents/FormsandPublications/ProfConduct/DisciplineOutcomes/SCHUBERT_CRA_20250911.pdf

For more information on the TRB process and other case examples of where teachers have been disciplined for not following the Teachers Standards when interacting with disabled students, read my TRB page.

Posted on

Getting ready for IEP Season – Legally

Here is a list of relevant human rights decisions that can assist you in your advocacy at IEP time.

Among decisions from hearings are decisions to not dismiss complaints and have them proceed, which are also relevant. It shows what will be considered a human rights complaint and gives you an idea of what your advocacy options are.

Self-Advocacy

A topic that often comes up in IEP meetings is self-advocacy. What does the Human Rights case law say about advocacy for kids with a disability?

Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237

[90]           Generally, it is the obligation of the person seeking accommodation to bring forward the relevant facts: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 970. This can be challenging for children, and especially challenging for children with invisible disabilities. I agree with the Parent that children who require accommodation in their school are in a different situation than adults seeking accommodation. Though they have a role to play in the process, that role will be age and ability-specific, and the burden cannot be on a child to identify and bring forward the facts necessary for their accommodation.

******

  • Age specific
  • Ability specific
  • Burden is not on the child to identify and bring forward the necessary facts for their accommodation

Self-advocacy is an important skill for children to develop, but we need to be realistic about the environment they are in. I give you this blog: Self-Advocacy and Victim Blaming in Education

Denied an EA?

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.

*******

  • We know from this that if you feel your child is not being properly accommodated for their disability-related needs by not having access to an Education Assistant, it may be possible that your human rights complaint will be accepted by the tribunal.
  • You can use this case in your advocacy
  • The school district would have to be able to justify its decision not to provide your child access to an EA and that they were still reasonably accommodating your child. Documenting your child struggling and not equitably accessing their education is key. Provide this evidence to the district with this case.

Professional Recommendations

[66] The Child alleges that the School Board lost or did not read many of the reports that were provided to them, and that as a result, the recommendations contained in those reports were not incorporated into their IEPs. Therefore, they say, the Child’s disabilities were not properly accommodated. The Child says that had the IEPs been developed in line with the medical and psychoeducational recommendations contained in the reports provided to the School Board, their Parents would not have had to intervene with private support services in order to keep the Child at grade level. They say that because the recommendations in the reports were not incorporated into the Child’s IEPs, the Parents were required to provide the Child with tutoring, vision therapy, and auditory therapy, along with other interventions.

[68] The School Board admits that certain of the recommendations contained in the psychoeducational assessment and other medical reports were not included in the Child’s IEPs. However, the School Board says that the IEPs developed for the Child “are consistent with the recognized supports for students with a learning disability like dyslexia within British Columbia.” They say that many of the recommendations from the psychoeducational assessment report in particular were specific to programs available in Colorado, not in BC. They say the IEPs that have been developed for the Child were consistent with the Child’s Ministry of Education designation and “the information regarding [the Child’s] learning needs”, including the provision of a learner support teacher as well as modifications implemented by the classroom teacher. They note that the Child’s progress reports indicate that they have progressed “well” and “overall at grade level”.

[72] While the School Board took steps through the IEPs to accommodate the Child, based on the materials before me, I am not persuaded that they are reasonably certain to prove they took all reasonable and practical steps to remove the disability-related barriers faced by the Child. This allegation will proceed.

*******

  • The school is taking a risk of you filing a human rights complaint and having it accepted if they do not consider the professional recommendations that you are providing them.

Not Following the IEP

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

[70] …..The Ministry says IEPs do have a legal effect and function, as there is a valid legislative and policy framework that provides both authority and guidance for IEPs.

********

To read about the legal effect and function of an IEP please read this blog, IEP – They aren’t just words on a Page

Meaningful Inquiry

The all-important duty to consult is very applicable to IEP meetings.

Read about the Duty to Consult, which is protected by the Human Rights case law. You are protected and backed up by multiple forms of written authority.

They Must Not Give Up

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

[120] Ultimately, on a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the District discharged its duty to accommodate X in his grade 2 year by reviewing the Diagnosis Report, developing an IEP, making various support people and strategies available that were incorporated into the classroom and outside, reviewing progress and changes, and adapting its approach in response……

*******

  • By developing an IEP, reviewing progress and adapting their approach, they can justify reasonable accommodations.
  • So you can ask them to give you examples of this being done.
  • Blog on this case.