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
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!