Month: October 2023

Documenting the Harm

You are feeling helpless.

Out of control.

Wondering what you can say to convince educational staff to not give up on your kid….

The complete desperation, I remember that feeling. I see you and I hear you.

You aren’t sleeping and you are spending hours staring at your ceiling wondering if an answer will present itself.

I will tell you something very very important.

You. need. to. document. the. harm.

All of it.

And not just the harm to your children. You too! Did you lose a promotion? Lose an educational opportunity? Did you quit your job? Have to leave school?

This is going to feel weird.

This is going to feel like you are stepping beyond the boundaries of normal family life. Yup and yup. You are going to feel that your child’s privacy is being violated. Yup. I get the heartache. Totally.

Documenting the harm that your child is experiencing from the education system can be one of the most powerful forms of advocacy, that a parent can gather.

Here is why.

You need evidence to be undeniable.

You need evidence so that you are not dismissed.

Human Rights.

A very important test of human rights complaints and Charter challenges is proving that you or your child is being disadvantaged (harm) because of their disability.

Without evidence, the human rights tribunal will state that your allegations are nothing but conjecture. And will dismiss your case. Done.

Dadmand v. School District No. 36 (Surrey), 2011 BCHRT 323

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 

[16] That provision creates a gate-keeping function that permits the Tribunal to conduct preliminary assessments of human rights complaints with a view to removing those that do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing. It is a discretionary exercise that does not require factual findings. Instead, a Tribunal member assesses the evidence presented by the parties with a view to determining if there is no reasonable prospect the complaint will succeed. The threshold is low. The complainant must only show the evidence takes the case out of the realm of conjecture.

You need admissible evidence. Period.

Without it, the district will be confident that you will not complete your obligation in the legal test of proving discrimination.

This is about the harm that has already occurred. Not something that you anticipate for the future. Something that has occurred in the PAST, and that you have evidence for.

So…… what proof/evidence do you need?

These are things I would think about?

Videos/Pictures/Witnesses/Doctors visits/Counselling visits, etc.

  • Is our child losing sleep? Are they eating less? (Keep a log)
  • Are they writing or drawing out their feelings? Keep their creative expressions.
  • Did you need to increase anxiety medication?
  • Are they requiring counselling? (Note: Government-free counselling will not testify as it is a conflict of interest and the school district knows that)
  • What are you witnessing at home? Log details of everything and take videos.
  • Are they refusing to leave their bed?
  • Are they refusing school? Document the days and for how long. Match it up with attendance on their report cards.
  • Are they self-harming?
  • If you are seeing any mental health responses describe the behaviour as if an alien is watching… what are they doing? For example, they are rolling in bed picking skin off of their right leg and smearing blood on the wall. (Did you take pictures of the blood?) Describe everything from a clinical perspective. I know this is hard, but you need to do it.
  • Are you filming them melting down after school? You can hide the camera.
  • Keep their school work with their grades on the pages
  • Keep all the report cards, suspension reports and emails

From the Human Rights Tribunal

******

What is evidence?

Evidence can be:

  • oral testimony: a witness answers questions in person, or over a speaker phone if the member agrees
  • documents: documents, such as pay stubs or letters, are given to the tribunal member by a witness and are marked as an exhibit at the hearing
  • things: sometimes witnesses give the tribunal member other things such as photographs – just about anything that helps prove your case – these things may also be marked as an exhibit at the hearing
  • affidavits or other statements: a witness’ evidence can be given to the tribunal in writing – this can be a statement such as a letter, or a statement made under oath or solemn affirmation called an affidavit
  • expert evidence: evidence from an expert that may be oral testimony, an affidavit, or a written report

What evidence will the tribunal accept?

The tribunal can accept almost any evidence that is relevant, which means that it relates to the complaint or to the response to the complaint.

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/guides-info-sheets/guides/getting-ready.htm

******

You get the idea, depending on the child, the list is endless.

As parents, we know what we know, but we need to prove it. Otherwise, our allegations are essentially worthless.

I actually don’t believe that school staff truly understand the harm that is happening to children and families. We don’t all live in the same world. They don’t see what we see.

This is why, we MUST document the harm in order to tell our kids stories.

Even if we feel that nothing will happen. You never know what years down the line will bring.

Keep the evidence.

The opportunity may present itself in the future to speak your child’s truth.

Responding to Dismissal Applications

Broe v. Board of Education of School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha)
and another, 2023 BCHRT 157

There was a case posted today that I thought discussed dismissals in a very informative way. Anyone who is self-representing and needs to respond to a dismissal application must be aware of how they need to meet the criteria so that their case can continue through the tribunal process and not be dismissed.

In the case Broe v. Board of Education of School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha) and another, 2023 BCHRT 157, I find the following paragraphs to be very helpful. The written decision has cases attached for you to review as part of the decision to cite if necessary in your argument and to understand further. I have linked the cases for convenience.

There is legal language in these descriptions that you might have to do your own research on if you do not have a law background.

YouTube videos I find are the most accessible as they are aimed at teaching people who are not lawyers how to understand law. If one video doesn’t tickel your fancy, keep up the search. There are a TON of them out there.

From the case:

[4] The issue before me is whether there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Broe will be successful at a hearing…

[35] On such an application, the respondent has the burden to show the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The complainant must only put evidence before the Tribunal that takes the complaint out of the realm of conjecture. This is not a high bar: Ritchie v. Central Okanagan Search and Rescue Society and others, 2016 BCHRT 110 at para 118.

[36] In considering applications under s. 27(1)(c), the Tribunal considers the entirety of the materials filed by the parties to determine if the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The test requires more than a mere chance the complaint will succeed: Wickham and Wickham v. Mesa Contemporary Folk Art and others, 2004 BCHRT 134 at para. 12.

[37] In order to succeed at a hearing, Ms. Broe must demonstrate she has a protected characteristic; that she experienced an adverse impact in relation to her employment; and that there was a nexus between that protected characteristic and the adverse impact alleged: Moore v. British Columbia, 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.

[38] To establish a justification defence at a hearing, the Respondents must show they adopted a standard in good faith for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job and that it would have been an undue hardship to accommodate Ms. Broe: British Columbia

I also highly recommend you visit the Leading Cases page on the Tribunal’s website which lists leading cases depending on the reason for the dismissal application.

Late filing – Timeliness of Complaint

This is a decision from the Human Rights Tribunal, posted in the September category for 2023.

The complainant filed the human rights complaint after the one-year deadline. These applications for late filing are very rarely accepted, and this case was accepted. They have dismissed cases that were one day or three days late. Brutal.

It’s also notable because it involves accessibility issues for a disabled student in a post-secondary school. This case was considered novel because the student is autistic. See paragraph 44 for details.

Here is the case and I have selected a few paragraphs from the main case.

Schulz v. Camosun College, 2023 BCHRT 142

[6] Millie Schulz has multiple mental disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder [ASD], attention deficit disorder [ADD], and post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD].

[16] On January 4, 2021, Millie Schulz sent a letter to the College dropping out the MHA program. After noting their issues and barriers, they said they did not feel supported in their classes with CAL, which was only looking out the College’s interests.

[37] Where the delay is due to a disabling condition, the Tribunal has observed that it may be in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint: MacAlpine v. Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, 2011 BCHRT 29 at para. 42. Disabling conditions can include physical and mental ailments resulting in great difficulty coping with even the basic daily tasks of life: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170 at para. 21

[42] Millie Schulz argues their case is unique as it involves a complainant with ASD. While the Tribunal has addressed mental health discrimination in the provision of services, it has not addressed many of the issues impacting individuals with ASD, and their need for accommodation, especially in a school or employment setting. They cite one Tribunal case dealing with autism from 2011, which points out that the nature of adult autism and how it manifests itself in the workplace is poorly understood, and individuals with this disability are subject to stigma and stereotyping: Noriega v. B. C. (Min. of Children and Family Development), 2011 BCHRT 199 at para 28.

[44] While appreciating this case is quite common in terms of the Tribunal dealing with the accommodation of a student with mental disabilities in a post-secondary setting, I find that the 12 subject matter of accommodating autism, in particular ASD, is sufficiently unique to attract some public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed late filed.

[45] After weighing all the factors, I have decided it is in the public interest to accept this late-filed complaint. While appreciating a significant delay in filing occurred, this factor is outweighed by the reasons for delay associated with Millie Schulz’s mental disabilities and the novelty of the case. It is now necessary to address the issue of whether any substantial prejudice would result. C. Substantial Prejudice