Learning Disability (Dyslexia)- costs of private school, and discrimination test

This case was first won in BC Human Rights Tribunal and was appealed and it went all the way up and was successful at the Supreme Court of Canada in 2012.

Court of Appeal for British Columbia 2010-10-29

British Columbia (Ministry of Education) v. Moore, 2010 BCCA 478 (CanLII)

Supreme Court of British Columbia 2008-02-29

British Columbia (Ministry of Education) v. Moore, 2008 BCSC 264 (CanLII)

Here is a detailed analysis of the case: THE MOORE DECISION MEANINGFUL ACCESS INCLUDING RANGE OF PLACEMENTS – AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RIGHT TO EQUAL ACCESS IN EDUCATION

Here is a simplified explanation of the key factors of the case: The Moore Case: Summary

From the case:

J suffered from severe dyslexia for which he received special education at his public school.  In Grade 2, a psychologist employed by the school district recommended that since he could not get the remedial help he needed at his school, he should attend the local Diagnostic Centre to receive the necessary remediation.  When the Diagnostic Centre was closed by the school district, J transferred to a private school to get the instruction he needed.  His father filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal on J’s behalf against the school district and the Province on the grounds that J had been denied a “service . . . customarily available to the public” under s. 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code.  The Tribunal concluded that there was discrimination against J by the District and the Province and ordered a wide range of sweeping systemic remedies against both.  It also ordered that the family be reimbursed for the tuition costs of J’s private school. 

This case is a leading case on the Human Rights Tribunal site as it outlines the test of discrimination.

Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61. To prove discrimination, a complainant has to prove that:

  1. they have a characteristic protected by the Human Rights Code [Code];
  2. they experienced an adverse impact with respect to an area protected by the Code; and
  3. the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact.