Budget Time!

It is budget time for school districts.

School districts are struggling immensely!

Burnaby School District

“Just five years ago, the district was carrying millions of dollars in operating surpluses from one year to the next, but the district now expects to have only $43,795 in its reserves when the books are closed on the year this summer, according to an amended 2024/25 operating budget passed at a school board meeting last week.”

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/burnaby-school-district-reserves-at-low-ebb-due-to-cost-pressures-10400758

Surrey School District

“The Surrey Board of Education announced the district is facing a shortfall of $16 million dollars to pass a balanced budget for the 2025-2026 school year. This is due to provincial funding not keeping pace with inflationary pressures and years of population growth in Surrey.”

https://surreyschools.ca/_ci/p/184244#:~:text=Last%20year%2C%20the%20Board%20approved,to%20pass%20a%20balanced%20budget.

Vancouver School District

“Some Vancouver School Board trustees are sounding the alarm after they say the budget for the 2024-2025 school year fails to address key concerns.”

https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/only-going-to-get-worse-parent-trustee-say-vancouver-school-budget-fails-to-address-key-needs

Why are they struggling so much?

“According to that 2021 data, BC allocates just 3 percent of its GPP to K-12 education, while Manitoba allocates 4.9 percent, Nova Scotia 4.4 percent, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island 4.2 percent, Quebec 4.1 percent, New Brunswick 4 percent, Ontario 3.8 percent and Alberta 3.3 percent. This smaller percentage means BC school boards have less funding available for student support and to provide up-to-date, adequate and safe school buildings.”

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/increased-public-funding-for-private-schools-is-dividing-us-and-needs-to-stop/

Our province is the LOWEST.

WTF BC!!!!

I really encourage parents to attend their school district’s budget meetings. Many of them are offered online. To understand what is happening in education, we need to understand budgets and budget decisions.

Public Engagement Period

At many board meetings, you can submit your questions beforehand. School districts have a public engagement period where you can make submissions or present at the budget meeting. You can read the financial reports online.

If you go to the school district’s website, most likely in the board area, they will have a financial section.

You will see a preliminary budget and an amended budget link.

Budget conversations can get people really riled up. Resources are scarce, and everyone is fighting for crumbs.

Why this province doesn’t prioritize public education is beyond me.

Pay now or pay later.

Blog: Who Does Society Care About?

New HRT Decision – EA taken away, IEP – VERY Informative!

We have another recent decision from the HRT and there is a LOAD of interesting stuff in here!

This is a dismissal application.

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

Many thanks to the parent(s)/guardians who stuck it through and brought this decision into fruition.

There are so many good bits in here, I am creating a list before you even dive into the blog. I want you to keep reading all the way to the end and get all good stuff.

  • IEP – what’s required to defend in a dismissal
  • The role of an EA – defence by the SD, 1;1 criteria
  • IEP written contract/legal perspective from the Ministry
  • Educational program required while kids are not physically in school
  • Ministry again dismissed in case, and why.

This is what the complaint is about

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

[8] P has disabilities including Down Syndrome, scoliosis, and other chronic medical conditions, including heart and lung issues.

[9] For context, P says her time at secondary school from grades eight to twelve included the following negative experiences:

a. Her one-to-one EA assistance was taken away by the school causing her significant trauma.

b. Her parents did not receive a book list or course outlines.

c. She did not receive homework as she was not being taught.

d. She was physically abused by other children while staff left her unattended.

e. She was forced to sit by herself without any form of intellectual stimulation.

Here is also what I find VERY interesting. The parents were alleging that the school didn’t follow the IEP. BUT because they didn’t specify what aspects of the IEP weren’t being followed, this portion of the complaint was dismissed.

SO! What do we learn from this? BE SPECIFIC. If you are going to be alleging your kids IEP wasn’t followed you are going to need to identify exactly what on the IEP wasn’t followed.

a. Failure to follow IEP

[24] I am not persuaded that P has taken the allegation that the School District did not follow her IEP out of the realm of conjecture. She has not specified what elements of her IEP were not followed during the 2019/2020 school year.

Got it!

So this was part of the complaint.

“a. Her one-to-one EA assistance was taken away by the school causing her significant trauma.“

I wonder how many other parents could be filing over this reason!

There are so many interesting things about this case. Something else that has come up a lot with students who are experiencing exclusion. School districts are still required to provide an education program even if kids aren’t physically at school.

b. Denial of at-home schooling

[30] School districts in this province are required to make educational programs available to all school-age children registered in the district. In certain circumstances, this includes at-home or “homebound” instruction. The School District has provided an excerpt from the Minister of Education’s Special Education Services Manual of Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines [ Special Education Manual ] which explains homebound programming in BC. It states:

School districts are required to make available an educational program to all persons of school age who are resident in its district and who are enrolled in a school in the district. School districts must maintain appropriate educational programs for students who are anticipated to be absent from school for extended periods of time. Instruction should be initiated as soon as possible. Authorization from the physician or public health nurse should be received prior to services being provide to students with health problems.

Students eligible for homebound services include:

· Students who are absent from school for medical reasons such as injury, disease, surgery, pregnancy, psychological reasons, etc. […]

[32] P says she required at-home instruction because she could not regularly attend school due to her disabilities. The evidence from both parties demonstrates that P was frequently absent from school for extended periods of time due to disability-related illness. A document prepared by P’s school from October 2019 states that P’s “attendance record throughout high school has been a concern – typical attendance is 10-20 days per year.” For the 2019/2020 school year, the parties agree that the plan was for P to only attend in person one day per week. Based on this information, the Tribunal could reasonably find at a hearing that P did not receive the instruction offered to other students in the district because she could not attend school in person for disability related reasons, and she was not provided instruction in her home. I am satisfied that this information takes out of the realm of conjecture that P’s disability was a factor in the adverse impact she experienced as a result of the School District’s decision to deny at-home instruction.

For parents whose children who have experienced a physical incident at school. If you want to tie it to rights-based advocacy (the Human Rights Code), you need to tie the behaviour to their protected ground (disability).

[55] While I acknowledge the seriousness of this allegation, P has not explained how her disabilities were a factor in the alleged adverse impacts of either the attack or the school’s response. Accordingly, although there is a contradiction in the evidence regarding whether this incident occurred, even if I accept P’s account as true for the purposes of this application, I am not persuaded that she has taken out of conjecture that there is a nexus between any adverse impact and her disabilities. For this reason, this allegation cannot proceed.

We already have a decision from the BC HRT, supported by the BC Supreme Court, that schools are responsible for providing students with a discriminating harrassment free school environment. See the successful case on bullying. “School Board has the duty to provide students with an educational environment that does not expose them to discriminatory harassment.”

Bullying or a one time physical attack needs to be connected to a protected ground.

Also in the case…

As usual, when parents try and link in the Ministry of Education, they always get dismissed.

[75] I agree with the Ministry that the complaint against it should be dismissed in its entirety.

Here is why

[73] …. The Ministry denies this allegation and reiterates that it is not involved in making decisions regarding individual students.

And the overall conclusion was that part of the complaint was dismissed, other parts continued.

Another part I thought this part was VERY interesting….

[48] The School District says one-to-one EAs are limited only to students who are medically dependent and require assistance with toileting. Generally, this is most often at elementary school and only occasionally at middle school. At secondary school, the School District typically shares EAs, to allow for independence and growth.

[49] The School District says that P did not require a one-to-one EA, because she was not medically dependent and because she did not require assistance with toileting. The School District says each class included a teacher and at least one EA to provide support. P always had an adult near her. The purpose was to build P’s independence, which was the most important aspect of her Grade 13 education programming. Due to P’s progress in achieving independence, the School District says she could do many tasks independently and safely under the supervision of staff. According to the School District, one-to-one EA support would not have been conducive to P’s independence goals.

Always know that the school district is going to argue anything they want. They can make up any reason/excuse that they want. That DOESN’T mean that the tribunal is going to believe them or accept what they are saying.

The school district’s lawyers will ALWAYS have a response for everything. It doesn’t mean their argument is a strong argument or that they have evidence to back it up.

You can argue back. The decision maker is the tribunal. NOT the respondent’s lawyers, no matter how convincing or confident they want to appear.

When we look at the recent case for exclusion (not this case, another one), the tribunal was asking…

Student Y by Grandparent S v. Board of Education of School District No. X, 2024 BCHRT 353

[52] From the materials before me, I am satisfied that the School District was actively and intensively involved in attempting to accommodate Student Y’s disabilities from the time that Student Y was in grade one up until the time that she was excluded from school in grade three. However, the question before me on this application is whether the School District is reasonably certain to prove that it “could not have done anything else reasonable or practical to avoid the negative impact on the individual”: Moore at para. 49 [Emphasis mine]. In my view, there is a lack of information in the materials before me that would allow me to conclude that the School District is reasonably certain to do so

They bolded the anything else, not me.

If there is a negative impact on your child not having an EA, you need to document the harm.

Always remember that the district is responsible for removing barriers.

Not providing the appropriate support for them to access their education can be explained to the tribunal as a barrier. The lack of an EA could mean they aren’t providing your child a ramp. Just because the school district says only kids with medical needs&/toiliting support needs get a 1:1, doesn’t mean the tribunal will support that decision-making. The tribunal may feel the criteria for accessing an EA is discriminatory for other kids with other disabilities.

This is why bringing our cases forward for the analysis of the tribunal is so important and a strong form of advocacy. By creating these cases and decisions they are creating a path with street lamps for other parents to walk down when they advocate for their own kids.

Another part that is so fascinating is what they said

[68] The Ministry says that IEPs are not written contracts, as set out in the document “Individual Education Planning for Students with Special Needs: A Resource Guide for Teachers” (Province of British Columbia, November 2009) [ Resource Guide ]:

Q: Should the IEP be signed by the parent and a member of the school-based team?

A: There is no provincial requirement for signatures on an IEP. It should be clear to parents that IEPs are not written contracts, but rather working documents into which they have input along with the staff who work directly with the student. Some schools include signatures on a separate page to document who was present and who received a copy of the IEP.

[70] However, the Ministry disagrees that just because IEPs do not require a parent’s signature the School District is not required to adhere to them. 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.

For parents self-representing, you will probably want to keep this case handy to use in your arguments to the tribunal.

A BIG THANK YOU to KD who is self-representing P. This decision is LOADED with helpful information.

I have created a new RESPONDING TO DISMISSAL page and here is a page with all of the dismissal and timeliness applications in education involving students in the last 10 years.

Parents take Ministry of Education to Court – Win for Equitable Education

This case is a fascinating read.

Parents took the Ministry of Education in Alberta to court.

Kerber v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 98 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/parents-take-province-to-court-over-order-keeping-some-kids-out-of-classrooms-during-strike

There are two parts that stick out to me, that I think you will all find interesting.

The Ministry trying to disconnect from their own orders they create and the labour shortage paragraph.

Let me hook you in with this line:

[152]      The Charter guarantees equal access to education for all students; the corollary effect is that that the equitable principle must be applied in times of labour or resource shortages.  Here, what is apparent is that there was no consideration of how the reduced resources could be redistributed among all students.  It was assumed that minimal disruption to the system would result by targeting only a sub-set of students – those who use an EA. However, this approach failed to consider that non-disabled students might suffer the least amount of harm since they do not have the same disadvantages as the students with disabilities and could adapt to an at-home learning program more easily, i.e., some non-disabled students switch to at-home learning to free up more resources for complex-needs students, or some of them, to attend school in-person even with the EAs presently unavailable.

EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES MUST BE APPLIED IN TIMES OF LABOUR OR RESOURCE SHORTAGES. Woohoo! Thank you!

This case is in relation to a strike.

[1]               Approximately 3,700 complex-needs students have been advised by their schools that they must continue their education programs on an at-home or a rotating in-school basis because of the strike involving support workers at Edmonton Public Schools. This situation has persisted for over five weeks. 

Why?

Because…..

[7]               On January 9, 2025, CUPE 3550 issued a notice that it would be going on strike as of January 13, 2025. A range of support staff, including administrative assistants, clerks, educational assistants, food preparers, interpreters, library technicians, licensed practical nurses, speech language pathology assistants, and technicians have been on strike since that date.

So the Ministry of Education in Alberta did this.

[9]               On January 12, 2025, the day prior to the strike, the Minister of Education, Demetrios Nicolaides, signed Ministerial Order #002/2025. The Ministerial Order states:

I, Demetrios Nicolaides, Minister of Education, pursuant to section 4 of the In-person Learning Regulation, exempt The Board of Trustees of Edmonton School Division from the application of section 2 of the regulation to provide an in-person learning option, at the schools under its authority, to students who require an educational assistant due to complex needs where the continued attendance of those students at in-person learning may risk the health and safety of the student or other students or staff, subject to the terms and conditions in the attached Appendix.

Which means kids with complex needs are being excluded from in-person learning.

So 4 parents took the Ministry of Education to court.

[4]               The Applicants, who are four complex-needs students affected by the Ministerial Order, seek an interlocutory injunction suspending the operation of the Ministerial Order or, alternatively, an exemption to the Ministerial Order, until the summary judgment or trial can be heard and determined on the Charter issue.

The Ministry of Education tried to pass the issue and blame the school district. Saying the school district didn’t have to follow the order they were just given permission to do so. (OMG! Insert huge eye roll. I actually laughed out loud when I read this!)

[26]           Alberta argues that the Ministerial Order does not require the ESD to stop providing in-person learning to particular students; it merely permits the ESD to make decisions about at-home learning considering the safety of all students and staff within its schools in light of the strike action. 

The court saw through that BS.

[40]           While Alberta is correct that the Ministerial Order does not require any student to learn at-home, the Ministerial Order is the permissive enabling enactment that grants the ESD the authority to make decisions about which students must switch to full or partial at-home learning. Alberta is the correct party to name in this application.

So Ministries of Education across Canada, if you write discriminatory policies don’t blame the school districts for acting on them.

For those who like legal mumbo-jumbo, there are various forms of legal analysis in this decision.

The conclusion was that the parents won the injunction they were seeking.

And as mentioned before I really like this paragraph

[152]      The Charter guarantees equal access to education for all students; the corollary effect is that that the equitable principle must be applied in times of labour or resource shortages.  Here, what is apparent is that there was no consideration of how the reduced resources could be redistributed among all students.  It was assumed that minimal disruption to the system would result by targeting only a sub-set of students – those who use an EA. However, this approach failed to consider that non-disabled students might suffer the least amount of harm since they do not have the same disadvantages as the students with disabilities and could adapt to an at-home learning program more easily, i.e., some non-disabled students switch to at-home learning to free up more resources for complex-needs students, or some of them, to attend school in-person even with the EAs presently unavailable.

And yes I too would like to thank these parents for bringing forward education cases under legal analysis.

[161]      I wish to thank counsel for their excellent submissions.

[162]      I also wish to extend my gratitude to the parties and the families for their participation in this important issue.

If you want to skip the legal analysis and just go to the conclusion at the bottom, it starts on paragraph 153. Here is some of it.

[157]      The nature of the harm that the Applicants would suffer is significant.

[158]      The nature of the legislation under attack is the provision of education – a fundamental service owed to all young people.

[159]      The public interest lies in ensuring equitable treatment of all students during a labour shortage and a fair redistribution of available resources that does not discriminate based on a disability.

The Next Generation of Student Advocates

In the last year or so, we’ve had an increase in student advocacy throughout the BC Human Rights Tribunal Process. These students are doing things that not all adults can even bring themselves to do. Here is some hope for the future.

All of these advocates want to make some noise about their experiences. I encourage you to read their complaints in full. All four were able to experience different layers of success with their decisions.

Let’s take a look!!

Advocate #1

Vick v. Board of Education of School District No. 41 (Burnaby), 2024 BCHRT 104

[4] Ms. Vick alleges having a learning disability and other mental disabilities. She is a former student at the School District. Ms. Vick was a minor during the period when the allegations in question occurred and at the time she filed this complaint.

[5]               Ms. Vick alleges generally that multiple teachers at the School District were hostile towards her for being unable to complete course work on time because of her learning disabilities and mental illnesses. She says this occurred despite the teachers knowing about her disabilities.

[15]           In the August 8, 2022, complaint amendment, Ms. Vick confirmed she wanted to name the School District as the respondent in the April 6, 2022, complaint

33]           Ms. Vick is seeking justice for the School District’s alleged failure to accommodate her mental disabilities. She believes her case is unique and novel in that it involves a School District service provider failing to properly accommodate her disabilities.

[31] ….Ms. Vick demonstrated her maturity regarding the existence of the Code and the Tribunal process when she filed her first complaint with the Tribunal in September 2021 and this complaint on April 6, 2022, while still a minor on both occasions.

Two complaints she has filed. Good for her. As a way to enhance her justice seeking, here is a list of her allegations against the Burnaby School District from her complaint filed in 2022.

[7]               On January 1, 2018, Ms. Vick alleges a teacher sent a rude email to her mother in response to her mother’s request that Ms. Vick be accommodated for her disabilities [the January 1, 2018, Allegation].

[8]               On July 1, 2019, Ms. Vick alleges a summer schoolteacher refused to provider her with any accommodations while her support teacher was on a break. She says the teacher also stood beside her desk, pressuring her to finish a test [the July 1, 2019, Allegation]

[9]               On November 1, 2019, Ms. Vick alleges that she asked a teacher for an extension of time to finish an assignment, but permission was not granted until her support teacher later asked on her behalf. Later the same day, Mr. Vick alleges she was told to leave the class during a manic episode, despite not acting aggressively [the November 1, 2019, Allegation No. 1]

[10]           On November 1, 2019, Ms. Vick alleges a teacher made fun of one of her disabilities by asking if she was manic in a joking and sarcastic way [the November 1, 2019, Allegation No. 2]

[11]           On June 1, 2021, Ms. Vick alleges a teacher who was aware of her disabilities acted in a hostile manner when she was unable to finish her homework on time following a “mixed episode”. Ms. Vick says the teacher later told her in an email that it was not discrimination to refuse an accommodation. Finally, Ms. Vick alleges the teacher later dismissed the class 40 minutes early preventing her from doing a mandatory presentation, which resulted in her failing the class [the June 1, 2021, Allegation].

[12]           On September 9, 2021, Ms. Vick filed a complaint against the Ministry of Education alleging it neglected to make reasonable adjustments in how it provided education to those with mental illnesses, including herself, which would reduce the negative effects of mental illness on education outcomes. Ms. Vick alleges teachers’ lack the training related to teaching students with mental disabilities. She also alleges teachers failed to identify children with disabilities needing to be referred for an assessment of their diagnosis. Finally, teachers failed children with mental disabilities as they did not know the options for accommodating their disabilities.

Advocate #2

Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another

Here are the allegations:

(37) Child K has a chronic health condition which impacts her ability to do certain tasks in a classroom, including writing. Mrs. Ehmke alleges that, throughout grade 2, her teacher failed to provide necessary classroom accommodations to meet Child K’s disability-related needs. She says that she asked the School to provide Child K with an Individualized Education Plan [IEP], but the School took the position that Child K was not entitled to one because her needs were being met through classroom adaptations. Towards the end of the school year, Mrs. Ehmke asked the School to apply for a Ministry of Education funding designation for Child K. The School declined to pursue a designation at that time. It said that it would address the issue in the fall of 2018, when the applications to the Ministry were due.

(38) Mrs. Ehmke says that, throughout the year, Child K’s school-related anxiety was escalating because her disability-related needs were not being met. On April 24, 2018, Child K stopped attending School because of that anxiety. She never returned. The following year, Child K enrolled in a public school, where she received a Ministry designation and an IEP.

This was an anonymization decision. The child and the parent were fighting to be named and name the school. The tribunal took caution and decided to name the parent and the school, and said that when she is an adult she can decide if she wants to change her name on this decision. It is noted in the decision,

[11]           In consenting to anonymize and limit publication of Child K’s name, Mrs. Ehmke is clear that her purpose is to preserve Child K’s right to choose, when she is old enough, whether to make her identity in this complaint process public to people outside their school and faith communities. Mrs. Ehmke describes Child K as a person who is “activist-minded” and is used to advocating for herself in connection with her disabilities. She says that it is not helpful for Child K to keep her disabilities invisible, and that most people within their school and faith communities are already aware of the circumstances giving rise to this complaint. These submissions are important to understand Mrs. Ehmke’s position about whether to extend anonymization orders and publication bans to other people involved in the complaint.

[12]           I anonymize and order a ban on publication of Child K’s name in connection with this complaint, unless or until Child K identifies herself as a party to this complaint after she is 19 years old, in which case the publication ban will cease.

It takes a lot of bravery to break through the stigma attached to anxiety and be a role model to others. Both child and Mom have paved a path by this decision.

Advocate #3

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

[2]               I commend the Student for her participation in this difficult process. She gave evidence that was helpful, straightforward, and credible, and which I have relied on to decide this case. I also thank the Parent and representatives of the District for their hard work and sensitivity in presenting their respective cases.

[114]      Finally – a note for the Student. It was apparent to me in this hearing that there are many caring adults invested in the Student’s wellbeing and development. She is an impressive young person with a sophisticated understanding of herself and her needs, and a Parent who is proactively equipping her with the tools she will need to continue her success into adulthood. I congratulate her on all that she has achieved, and wish her the best with what is to come.

Testifying can be intimidating and stressful for adults. She chose to speak up and talk about her experience. By doing so, this decision was written. This decision brought meaningful inquiry into the duty to accommodate and other advancements in The Code.

Advocate #4

Bigam by MacDonald v. Board of Education of School District No. 23 (Central Okanagan) and others, 2024 BCHRT 288

Given that the tribunal is always overly cautious about protecting the identity of minors, I assume that the teenager wanted to be named.

If that is true then ALL 3 advocates wanted to be named in their complaints.

Here are the allegations made by Advocate #3.

[1]               Faith Bigam, who has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis [MS], was in Grade 11 when a teacher allegedly prevented her from presenting during a school assembly at which she had been slated to speak [assembly incident]. In her complaint, she alleges that the teacher (Kathryn Lafontaine), the school principal (Kathy Weninger), and the school district discriminated against her based on mental and physical disability in the area of services contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code by preventing her from speaking and by mishandling the assembly incident after it occurred. She says that because of these events, she was unable to return to school and ultimately lost out on important social and educational opportunities.

[7]               According to Ms. Bigam, she was concerned that she would be bullied at George Elliot should the students there find out that she had MS. Ms. Bigam says that in Grade 11 she missed a lot of school due to health issues, which made it difficult to maintain her friendships. She says that she found it anxiety provoking to go to school. Despite these concerns, however, and with the encouragement of one of her teachers, Leslie Plummer, Ms. Bigam decided in early March 2019 to talk to the school about MS and living with MS. Ms. Bigam says: “I finally realized that it was important to me to talk about MS and to spread awareness about it in a positive way at school…” Ms. Bigam “thought it would be beneficial to the school, and to me and others like me.”

Another child and parent paving the path by exposing their complaint to the public.

**********

Learning to advocate for yourself and feeling the confidence and bravery to stand up for yourself does not come easy. Especially when you grow up in an ableist society and you are given these micro messages all day long that your rights are less than.

I can’t say how impressed I am that these four are speaking up for themselves and using their experience as examples for others to learn from and advance the human rights code. Just by having these decisions published for the public to witness and learn from is worthy advocacy. An interesting trend, they are determined to name themselves and the school districts. Is that due to anger? Justice seeking? There is so much stigma about mental health and disability and these four are pushing the boundaries on what can be talked about and not remain hidden. I wish all four of these students all the best and many many many thanks!

A Lighthouse to Those at Sea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





“It depends…”

People want to know what navigating the human rights tribunal system is going to be like for them. If it is going to be a lot work, or how many hours they will they need to have available for them to do it.

It all depends.

It depends on what your goals are.

Do you want a settlement for your child with specific remedies for them? For example, more EA support, a new school district policy, and/or settlement money. Currently, with the complaint process, the settlement meeting option is coming before anything else. Document disclosure, applications, case conferences, etc. Those all come after if the settlement meeting didn’t bring the parties together on an agreement.

If you want to take your case to a hearing, now we are talking about a whole other level. You are going to need to self-educate yourself more.

Everyone’s experience isn’t exactly the same and their cases aren’t exactly the same. Some parents are absolutely LIVID and that anger propels them forward into action. Some people are sad about how everything has unfolded, and they just want this to be over and move on. Some people need certain things to happen in order for them to move on. I find it also depends if you are in a public school or a private school. If you have a lawyer or if you are self-representing. It depends if your child is still in the school or if you have already pulled them out. It also depends very much on the complexity of your case, and how much learning you are going to need to do. Some people fear retaliation, while others see this process as protecting their child from retaliation. It also depends on who you are as a person and how much experience you have navigating systems. Some people have already been self-representing themselves in family court and so they already know how to regulate their emotions and go through the system. Their confidence levels are higher. Some people have support systems and are already part of advocacy groups, and/or they have other forms of emotional support in place. It all depends on so many factors. Some people navigating the tribunal system have had experiences of closure and peace, feeling heard. Others have felt it didn’t bring what they were looking for and it was a waste of time. For some people it feels like a big deal to file a human rights complaint, other people don’t think anything of it, just do it, and carry on in their day. It all depends.

There are a few common themes in people who file human rights complaints, that I have seen so far.

  1. They want change. They never want another child to experience what their child did. They want to change the education system.
  2. They want accountability. Having these people get away with what they did, they cannot accept. Part of this, I have noticed, is that people fear that they will just keep doing what they are doing and so this does come back to point #1, and not wanting another child to have the same experience.
  3. They want to be seen and heard. Having their child pushed off to the side, discarded as unimportant, just eats them away. Many of these parents have been receiving nothing but the silent treatment and filing a human rights complaint is a way of saying, HELLO!

Sometimes people want to know everything before they start something. Others feel it’s better to not know everything and just do it. Deal with things as they come up. For example, some people want to go to business school to learn how to start a business and some people just do it. It’s very interesting how people approach things.

What I do want to say is that you can’t depend on your experience being like someone else’s. It really can be so different depending on so many factors.

It’s impossible to predict the future. I don’t know what this experience is going to be like for you. One thing that I think is true for everyone, is that you will learn more bout yourself by navigating this system. You’ll find out where your boundary lines are, and what triggers you and moves you forward. Or, what you are willing to live with. I think there is potential for it to be an interesting journey, nonetheless. Advocacy always is.

Bullying in Schools

“…school Board has the duty to provide students with an educational environment that does not expose them to discriminatory harassment.”

Bullying is a complex layered topic. While there is nothing wrong with focusing on kindness for anti-bullying day, it certainly doesn’t actually address bullying. Lots of kids are kind. Bullying is different.

How does the Human Rights Code feel about schools and bullying?

Here you go. Thank you to this brave person for standing up and taking their case all the way. It even went to the BC Supreme Court.

“Mr. Jubran, who does not identify himself as homosexual, alleges that, for the five years he attended Handsworth, he was taunted with homophobic epithets and physically assaulted, including being spit upon, kicked and punched by other students, because of his perceived sexual orientation.  Mr. Jubran further claims that the School Board knew about other students’ behaviour towards him, and that it is responsible for the harm caused to him because it failed to provide him with a safe learning environment.”

Here is the BCHRT case:

Jubran v. Board of Trustees, 2002 BCHRT 10 (CanLII)

Here is the BC Court of Appeal case:

School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v. Jubran, 2005 BCCA 201

Schools are not just responsible for addressing the bullying but they are also responsible for preventing the bullying from continuing.

Remember to document everything. Take pictures, and attend doctors’ appointments and private counselling appointments. Any government (free) counsellor will not be able to testify at a hearing.

From the BC HRT case:

 [102]      I find that the School Board is responsible for the discriminatory behaviour of the harassing students (see an analogous case: Ferguson v. Muench Works Ltd. (1997), 1997 CanLII 24826 (BC HRT), 33 C.H.R.R. D/87 (B.C.C.H.R.) at para. 42).

[109]      The Court held that schools are:

…an arena for the exchange of ideas and must, therefore, be premised upon principles of tolerance and impartiality so that all persons within the school environment feel equally free to participate. As the board of inquiry stated, a school board has a duty to maintain a positive school environment for all persons served by it. (at para. 42)

[116]      As a matter of legislation and case authority, there is a legitimate state interest in the education of the young, that students are especially vulnerable, that the School Board may make rules establishing a code of conduct for students attending those schools as part of its responsibility to manage those schools.  Given this, and the quasi-constitutional nature of the Code, I find that the School Board has the duty to provide students with an educational environment that does not expose them to discriminatory harassment.

[118]      Having found that the School Board contravened s. 8 by failing to provide a learning environment free of discrimination, the burden then shifts to the Board to establish that the measures it took constitute a bona fide and reasonable justification.  Once the harassment is made known to the school, the administration had an obligation to act on the specific complaints.  Although the School Board argued that there was no evidence that indicated which steps it had taken were insufficient, it has the burden of showing that the steps it took were appropriate. 

[138]      Although the administration’s strategy of disciplining individual offenders was effective vis-a-vis those individual students, it was not effective in reducing the harassment Mr. Jubran was experiencing on a regular basis.  While the harassing behaviour abated in grades 11 and 12, it did not stop.  Although Mr. Shaw was of the view that the school’s strategy of using progressive discipline was effective because a majority of the students never “re-offended”, he agreed that new offenders were being identified, and students were calling Mr. Jubran names that had not been used before.  However, it was his view that, because it was a different boy each time, a suspension for any one of them was inappropriate, since each incident was regarded as unique and specific.  Mr. Shaw also agreed that, even though the strategy appeared not to be effective in stopping the harassment, the school did not change that strategy. 

[160]      Although Handsworth’s administration did turn their minds to Mr. Jubran’s situation, and discussed different approaches to dealing with it, the School Board did nothing to address the issue of homophobia or homophobic harassment with the students generally, nor did it implement a program designed to address that issue.  Neither Mr. Rockwell nor Mr. Shaw were given any guidance or direction by the School Board on how to deal with the situation.  I find that the administration had inadequate tools to work with, and insufficient training and education to deal with the harassment.  The School Board did not seek assistance from those with particular expertise in the field of harassment, homophobic or otherwise, until Mr. Jubran filed his human rights complaint.  By that time, Mr. Jubran was in his fourth year of high school at Handsworth, and the harassment he was experiencing was continuing.

[161]      Despite the efforts of Handsworth’s administration in dealing with the harassment, when viewed as a totality, I conclude that the School Board has failed to discharge its burden of demonstrating that it accommodated Mr. Jubran to the point of undue hardship.

CIVIL LAW

ALSO……. please look at this document with lots of case law about duty of care and a school districts responsibility to bullying.

Do Hard Words Still Break No Bones? Assessing School Board – Liability When Bullied Students Commit Suicide, 2020 CanLIIDocs 3247

“It should also be noted that victims of bullying may have recourse under provincial human rights legislation where such bullying is based on a protected ground.[25] Where discrimination based on a protected ground underlies the bullying behaviour, there is the potential for provincial human rights legislation and negligence law to overlap. However, if the bullying in question is not based on a protected ground under provincial human rights legislation, a negligence claim may be the only recourse available to the bullied student or, in the case of suicide, to the student’s parents. Furthermore, potential liability in tort for injuries caused by school bullying can increase the pressure on schools and school boards to take further steps to curtail bullying.[26]

FOI and Human Rights Costs, Systemic Bullying.

Hey Parent(s)/Guardians,

Are you curious as to how much the school district was willing to spend on fighting you in the human rights tribunal system?

You can submit an FOI and find out.

This is a case where the parents of a Deaf child won a human rights complaint. When they were done they submitted an FOI request (Freedom of Information), and they found out that the school district spent $681,917.00 on legal fees to oppose them.

They won $150,000.00

Here is the newspaper article.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/carter-churchill-nlesd-human-rights-complaint-payments-1.6852768

“Todd and Kimberly Churchill filed an access-to-information request with the school board following their win at the province’s human rights tribunal in March. They discovered the district had spent $681,917 on legal fees to oppose the family’s complaints dating back to 2017, when Carter was in kindergarten.”

“In the end, the human rights commission ruled the district violated Carter’s human rights by not offering him an education in American Sign Language and ordered the school board to pay an additional $150,000 to the Churchill family.“

“I think it’s completely disgusting, because the Department of Education will say there’s no money for teachers, no money for supports, no money for children with exceptionalities,” said Todd Churchill. “But yet there’s money, almost three-quarters of a million dollars … to defend the discrimination of a five-year-old deaf child in a wheelchair.”

I have written blogs before about how much money is being spent on human rights complaints. I have done a couple of FOI requests with the Ministry of Finance to get access to the information.

The Ministry of Education doesn’t even track this kind of information. They are being told how much the district’s legal fees are, but how much of that is human rights complaints against families, they don’t know. Or won’t tell.

Read here. The Financial Cost of Human Rights Complaints in Education

I have also started tracking lawyers’ fees in general, mostly focusing on the school districts in the Lower Mainland. You can obtain all of the information from their SOFI reports that they have to publicly post on their district website.

2022-2023 School Year*I didn’t include cents
SDLegal Fees SOFI Link
Vancouver    799, 700https://media.vsb.bc.ca/media/Default/medialib/2022-2023-statement-of-financial-information.69747169697.pdf
Burnaby206,471https://burnabyschools.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SOFI-2023-webcopy.pdf
Surrey76,628https://media.surreyschools.ca/media/Default/medialib/2022-2023-sofi-statement-of-financial-information.bafc72163618.pdf
Coquitlam 118,861https://www.sd43.bc.ca/District/Departments/Finance/Financial%20Statements/2022-23%20Statement%20of%20Financial%20Information.pdf
Richmond50,025https://sd38.bc.ca/sites/default/files/2024-01/SOFI%202023_Redacted.pdf
Delta 43,830https://www.deltasd.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/12/SD37-SOFI-2022-2023.pdf
North Van 142,542https://www.sd44.ca/Board/BudgetFinancialInformation/Documents/Statement%20of%20Financial%20Information%20-%20June%2030%2c%202023%20signed%20for%20web.pdf
Victoria58,715https://www.sd61.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/91/2023/11/2022-2023-Statement-of-Financial-Information-redacted.pdf
2023-2024 School Year
SDLegal Fees
Vancouver3,204,911https://media.vsb.bc.ca/media/Default/medialib/open-finance-and-personnel-agenda-2024-nov-13.4b231d77311.pdf
Burnaby386,871https://burnabyschools.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/SOFI-2024-webcopy.pdf
Surrey94,477https://media.surreyschools.ca/media/Default/medialib/2023-2024-sofi-statement-of-financial-information.e9dc73180780.pdf
Coquitlam256,354https://www.sd43.bc.ca/District/Departments/Finance/Financial%20Statements/2023-24%20Statement%20of%20Financial%20Information.pdf
Richmond32,885https://sd38.bc.ca/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final%20SOFI%202324_Redacted.pdf
Delta53,802https://district.public.deltasd.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/12/SD37-SOFI-2023-2024.pdf
North Van313,220https://www.sd44.ca/Board/BudgetFinancialInformation/Documents/Statement%20of%20Financial%20Information%20-%20June%2030%2c%202024%20-%20for%20web.pdf
Victoria 57,521https://www.sd61.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/91/2024/11/2023-2024-Statement-of-Financial-Information_Redacted.pdf

(**Human rights cases can take years, so when high numbers are back to back, that looks interesting to me. Not all legal fees are human rights complaints against families.)

I bet the school district in N. L never saw Kim and Todd Churchill coming.

“The family said the school was “dismissive” of their concerns and repeatedly said he was receiving a quality education, despite being in an environment where he could not communicate. They were afraid for his well-being, they said, and he was socially isolated because he was unable to communicate with his peers and teachers.“

Sound familiar?

It’s quite ironic to me that school districts tout all these anti-bullying messages and messages of kindness and yet, this is the kind of stuff that they are famous for across the country.

So for anyone interested, FOI away!! You can always do an FOI to the Ministry of Finance at the same time, and see what you get. If they refuse to give it to you, you can file a complaint with OIPC and see what the OIPC thinks about that.

Duty to Accommodate – Meaningful Inquiry

There was a very important case that was published by the tribunal in December of 2023 that highlighted some gems. Very helpful clarifications that help parent(s)/guardians in their advocacy.

  1. This case is proof that you don’t need a designation to be protected under the Human Rights Code. Many parents are rightfully confused by this and think that if their kids don’t have an IEP then they can’t file a Human Rights Code. Nope. Your kids just need to have a disability and this disability is communicated to the school. If you have a diagnosis letter that has been given to them, that really locks them in without any wiggle room.
  2. Self-advocacy expectations are defined. Thank goodness! Self-advocacy gets tossed around a lot in school districts. If anything happens about accommodations not being offered they will automatically blame the student for not advocating. Which is BS.
  3. Meaningful inquiry. Parents don’t even need to use the word accommodation to trigger an expectation from schools. This piece is absolutely beautiful.

I have picked out the paragraphs that highlight these gems.

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

Some important gems in this decision that I see are:

Meaningful inquiry

[99]           Next, in B v. School District, 2019 BCHRT 170, the evidence supported that the school district provided the child with the recommended supports and accommodations. The Tribunal found that it was “only with hindsight” that it was possible to say that the child could have benefited from more support: para. 81. It dismissed the complaint in part because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the school district reasonably ought to have known that the child required more: para. 98. In contrast here, I have found that the District had sufficient information to trigger some kind of inquiry or response beyond asking the Student how she was doing and, assuming the counsellor did this, advising of available supports.

[100]      In short, I agree with the District that the Parent and Student were obliged to bring forward information relating to accommodation. The Parent did that, when she communicated that the Student had anxiety and trichotillomania and that school was taking a significant toll on her physical and mental health. That information should have been enough to prompt a meaningful inquiry by the school to identify what was triggering the Student’s symptoms and what supports or accommodations may be appropriate to ensure she was able to meaningfully and equitably access her education. The failure to take that step was, in my view, not reasonable. As a result, the disability-related impacts on the Student, arising from conditions in her Language 10 class between April 24 and June 27, 2019, have not been justified and violate s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

[104]      In sum, I have found that the conditions in the Student’s grade 8 Language 10 class exacerbated the Student’s anxiety and trichotillomania, and that the District failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and address those conditions during the period between April 24, 2019, and June 27, 2019 (the last day of school). I find this is a violation of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, and warrants a remedy, which I address below.

Around self-advocacy for children with invisible disabilities:

[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.

IEP – For a Child with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Trichotillomania

[59]           This ends the period of this complaint.  However, it is important to note that, in the Student’s grade 11 year, the school developed an individual education plan, or IEP, for her. This IEP set out the Student’s strengths, learning preferences, and goals. It identified specific supports for the Student, including flexible due dates, ensuring the Student was not put on the spot in class, reducing workload whenever possible, providing a quiet learning environment, and frequent teacher check ins. It also established that the Student would meet bi-monthly with the school counsellor to work on her goals. The Student’s grade 11 counsellor explains that she saw the IEP as a way to reduce the burden on the Parent and to support the Student to advocate for herself. From the Parent’s perspective, this was a welcome development that should have been done much sooner.

[7]               In this case, there is no dispute that the Student has disabilities, namely generalized anxiety disorder accompanied by trichotillomania (hair pulling). She is protected under s. 8 of the Human Rights Code from discrimination in her education. This complaint is about the Parent’s allegation that the symptoms of the Student’s disabilities were exacerbated in grades 8 and 9 because of her experience in Language 10 and Language 11, and that the District failed to accommodate her disability-related needs in those classes.

** Even without a designation at the time, she is still protected under the Human Rights Code.

Mental Health Stigma – Failure to Identify Diagnosis

[34]           The Parent did not see this email at the time. From her perspective, the email was not adequate to appropriately communicate the scope of the Student’s school-related needs. It did not fully communicate what the Parent had told the counsellor, and what she had expected would be passed along to the teachers. She felt it was also not realistic to think that the Student would approach a teacher and ask to be excused; in fact, this was not an option that it seems the Student ever exercised. In the Parent’s view, the failure to identify the Student’s diagnoses perpetuated the silence and stigma of mental health and undermined the Student. The message contrasts, for example, with the communication that the Parent sent to the Student’s teachers at the start of her grade 9 year, which said:

Communicating and providing evidence of a diagnosis

[13]           In light of the Student’s barriers in advocating for herself, the adults in her life have had to take on a more proactive role. The Parent’s open and active communication has been critical to ensuring that the Student’s needs are recognized and met in school. Throughout the Student’s education, the Parent has let her schools know about her disabilities, and that she may require monitoring because she is unlikely to proactively seek the support she needs.

[14]           There is no dispute that, due to the Parent’s advocacy, various individuals within the School District were aware of the Student’s diagnoses before and during the period of this complaint. For example, in the spring of grade 7, the Parent provided the elementary school with a note from the Student’s psychiatrist confirming that the Student had a “long-standing diagnosis of General Anxiety Disorder”. At the Parent’s request, this note was placed in the Student’s school file.

** This is a very important aspect as this ensures that a district has a duty to accommodate.

From the Human Rights Clinic Blog, Stress, Anxiety and the Duty to Accommodate, they explain…

“However, she did not provide any medical information that said she had a mental disability.

The Tribunal dismissed Ms. Matheson’s complaint, stating that “an essential element of a complaint of discrimination in employment on the basis of mental disability is proof that the complainant either had a mental disability… or was perceived to be mentally disabled by the employer.”

Here is Ms. Matheson’s case.

The media attention that this case brought can be seen here.

News Articles on Recent Human Rights Partial Win by Parent in Education

Advocacy Videos!!

I have a YouTube Channel with advocacy videos I have created of 3 different workshops all in English with CC and American Sign Language.

https://www.youtube.com/@KimBlock-PATH

The goal of providing these videos is to give you information that you can watch on your own time, chunk it up and not have to take in all the information at once, pause the screen to take all the time you need to read, and really make this a self-paced course.

If you have any feedback, please send my way!

More to come in the future, but I am taking a break for right now. 🙂