I have added this case to my list under the human rights cases tab. I have picked out some paragraphs, but I really encourage you all to read the full case to get the context of what happened to this child and family. The respondents applied for a dismissal and the human rights tribunal decided the complaint should continue.
There are a few paragraphs in this decision that got my noodle thinking, but for this blog, I want to focus on this paragraph below. Paragraph #52.
[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.
The author of this decision decided to emphasize the words anything else. It wasn’t me that bolded that in the paragraph.
So, this is my guess.
When the human rights tribunal emphasizes ANYTHING ELSE are they eluding to an alternative learning space?
A lot of districts have alternative learning programs for students who need alternative learning spaces. There has been a recent uproar over the closing of a learning centre in the Surrey district with parents and students very upset over its closing with media coverage and rallies. The school districts report funding issues. There was also another family who was in the media, and their son was in a life skills program, and he was excluded due to lack of resources. Without systemic financial planning from the Ministry of Education to keep these alternative programs running, they end up closing and students are still being excluded.
In the face of complete exclusion for some students from schools, will school districts be required to provide alternative learning spaces as their ANYTHING ELSE or face human rights complaints? The school districts already have the power to choose the education program for the student and choose classroom placement. This is from the Supreme Court decision Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, 1997 CanLII 366 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 241 (Notable paragraphs are: 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81)
What does the tribunal mean by ANYTHING ELSE? They have already acknowledged the school district was “actively and intensively involved in attempting to accommodate Student Y’s disability”.
We are at the brink of having Ombudsperson and possibly the Human Rights Tribunal (if this case goes to a hearing), set forth some expectations around the topic of exclusion.
After you read this case, what is your guess? What do you think anything else means?
Due to parents filing external complaints to the Ombudsperson BC department, they have decided to launch an investigation to see if these exclusions are fair.
Today makes me think of Judith.
Judith Heumann, the late disability activist has said “Change never happens at the pace we think it should. It happens over years of people joining together, strategizing, sharing and pulling all the levers they possibly can. Gradually, excruciating slowly, things start to happen, and then suddenly, seemingly out of the blue, something will tip.”
Today it tipped.
THIS is why filing external complaints is so important.
We are all grains of sand that make up a beach. Every complaint matters. It becomes data. Change will never happen if we just suck it up, swallow the circumstances that we are in, and never speak up.
We can never SHUT UP! EVER!
File
File
File
Our lived experience needs to spread far and wide.
Everything we do matters. All of it. Nothing is ever wasted. It builds over time. We will never truly know the full extent of the impact that we have on people and how think and may see things differently. We need to keep going.
To all of the parents who have filed over this topic in the past YEARS, you have all been building blocks to make this happen. ALL of you.
The Burnaby Now has recently posted articles about human rights complaints that are connected to Burnaby.
I am curious to know how the people who filed these complaints feel about that.
Do they like their story being shared? Do they feel that these articles are elevating their advocacy? Or do they wish Burnaby Now never wrote them?
Having courts and tribunal systems be open and transparent to the public is an important feature of our justice system. Court is always open. As a member of the public you can just walk in and watch everything unfold. In special circumstances, lawyers can argue to have a closed courtroom. Having an open court system is a way for us to learn about how our justice system works and how decisions are made. It boosts public confidence and supports the legitimacy of the system.
If you are a parent filing a complaint on behalf of your child, your name, your child’s name and the school district’s name will be anonymized. If you want to name yourself, or the school district you will need to make an application. One parent did just that and won. You can also apply to have just your school districts named. You can file an anonymization application as soon as your complaint is accepted.
However, if you are a parent filing a family status complaint they may anonymize your name if information about your child is disclosed, or they may not. There is a risk of this hitting the local newspaper. For some people, that would thrill them and the attention they have been wanting. Other people, may feel that their information being shared is a violation. One parent advocated for a consent resolution so that the details of what happened were posted publicly after a settlement. Bravo! That was a genius idea.
Dismissal decisions are not the only decisions being shared. Anything that would benefit the public to be aware of or that advances the Code gets posted. That is timeliness, complaint amendments, improper conduct applications, etc. Not all decisions get posted. Many of them do not. You will not know in advance if the decision is going to get posted or not until the day they tell you it will be posted the next day. You’ll get the decision in the morning and then shortly after it will be on their website.
If anonymization is important to you, this is a conversation I would suggest you have with your case manager. The sooner the better.
Also, know that having a closed hearing is also something you can apply for. Otherwise, your hearing will be posted on their public hearing list, and members of the public can sign up and listen in. This is how people learn about the process and prepare for their own cases.
Most parents I have talked to would love to broadcast their case to as many people as possible. They have reached the point where they want to scream from the tallest mountain. They want everyone to know what happened. But, if this isn’t the case for you, the public attention that could come from a human rights complaint may be something that you consider and discuss with your case manager as soon as your complaint gets accepted.
BC CAISE (BC Council of Administrators in Inclusive Education) in their “A Guide to Meaningful Consultation” manual on page 8 defines it as:
“Meaningful consultation is an ongoing, collaborative effort involving students, families/caregivers, and educational staff, focused on open dialogue and joint decision-making for educational matters. This inclusive process works towards ensuring all voices are heard and decisions are well-informed and clearly communicated. All parties work together towards a balanced outcome, emphasizing recurring dialogue rather than consultation being a single event.”
“When done well, meaningful consultation ensures families/caregivers feel that the school team listens to them and that their experience, knowledge and ideas have been considered.”
“Meaningful consultation encourages open dialogue; it does not mean all parties will agree.”
“When a mutual agreement is not possible, the school team will provide a rationale for their decision-making with regard to the educational programming of the child and ensure ongoing consultation and follow-up.”
If this rationale is not being provided and they refuse to provide it when you ask, you can use this manual and file an Ombudsperson complaint.
I also want to acknowledge that the consultation process can trigger a lot of emotions in us. In order to keep advocating and keep the dialogue going, there are certain rules we parents need to know to navigate this system.
I have recently had someone publicly tell me that the information I post “is already out there and readily available, and what is the point of providing information if it won’t help anyways?”
And “Being NICE and COLLABORATIVE so they will like you is the wrong approach”
And “this is exactly the response system is hoping for: having parents spend a multitude of energy and hours on researching and getting information to “help their child” in the classroom, so they can self congratulate themselves in showing how collaborative they have been with parents.“
This person feels the human rights system is a waste of time. What needs to occur are legislations changes only and anything less than that is a waste of time. They feel the only response parents should be doing is pulling their kids out of the education system.
Here is my response:
Not to toot my own horn, but for this blog, it’s important I place myself in this topic before I dive in. I don’t want anyone to think I am just making this stuff up. It is an informed blog. One of my degrees is in Human Relations from Concordia University, Montreal, with a certificate in family education. I graduated with honors and an award. This degree is about human systems. How people function in groups of all sizes from families to large organizations and societies, systemic change, and how to intervene when systems become toxic.
Some people when they advocate can reach a point when they are beyond frustrated, angry and bitter. Some people have decided to lash out at other people. The very people they are in the trenches with. They end up making it harder and more emotionally draining for parents who are advocating. I don’t think they realize the impact and how upsetting it is for other parents to hear their comments. Crabs in the bucket. My perception is that there is a lack of understanding of how human systems work, and how systemic change occurs and they are frustrated because how they think they should be able to make systemic change occur, isn’t occurring. The wider the gap between our expectations and reality, the more depressed or angry we will become.
I can’t fit everything in this blog about how human systems work, so for this blog I am going to focus on macro-level and micro-level aspects. Macro-level systems are the big ones. The government bodies that include hundreds and thousands of people. They are our political system, the structure of our economy, the structure from the Constitution of Canada and the impact on our system, democracy, our education systems with public schools, private schools, online schools etc. The large groups of multiple moving parts that involve many complex layers, and are maintained by many layers of legislation, policy, and guidelines. Think of many many gears all locked together. They are all moving. Wish to change one gear, and they will all be impacted. These systems have formal codes of conduct and contracts. Also, the unwritten social contracts and social rules that glues everyone together. These systems are tidal wave systems that do not get pushed off course unless something massive happens. I haven’t even mentioned the topic of power. That’s a whole other blog. Systems that are oppressive like to remain that way, unless it’s detrimental to themselves to not change.
Micro-level changes are things that happen on one-to-one individual levels. Individual social interactions. A 20-minute conversation is a micro-level interaction. This is when we advocate with our child’s teacher and they learn something new about ADHD and now they are adapting their teaching and accepting of movement breaks because they understand things differently.
Some people think, that if we only change this one law, or have this one human rights case, or if we change one piece of legislation then everything will be solved for all of the following generations.
I can promise you, if this is how you think, this is where your pain is because that will never happen. Change will never happen because of one person. Ever. We are dealing with way too many macro-level systems all connected and interacting with each other, AND we are dealing with way too many micro-level individual interactions of ableism and lack of information about disabilities. One person is not going to swoop in and solve it all. The education system provincially has hundreds of thousands of people working in these systems. There is not one solution. If we are waiting for a hero to ride in on a horse and save us all, we’ll be waiting for a very long time.
One person cannot change a human system. It takes teams. Plural. And in our society, it is going to take multiple teams all working together with a common goal for a sustained period of time. These teams are going to have to cover ALL different areas and all different aspects of the multiple gears.
There are 4 elements to a social movement.
There is a trigger event that inspires an intense reaction from the community
ALL of the already established community groups come together and work together as ONE
They have a common simple message that the public can understand. (Eg. Black Lives Matter)
The advocacy of this one common message and connection of all of the groups needs to be for a sustained period of time. A long time.
That is a social movement.
Think of the women’s movement in the 70’s. We still have women’s issues today. But women entering the workforce was quite the shift that started it all off. The different professions women are working in today is because of that social movement.
We need to work at both a macro-level and a micro-level. Even if we had a piece of legislation change or a fantastic policy manual from the government we are still going to be dealing with the individual people who are ableists and want power over. Any change coming from the top down and they will figure out ways to get around it, ignore it, and we will still be struggling with the same shit.
It’s not that we just need to get EA standards and everything will change.
It’s not that we just need to get legislation changed.
It’s not that we just need this one class action human rights case.
We need everyone. We need ALL of it. It is all hands on deck. We need every disability organization, we need all parents, we need trustees, we need educators, we need PAC’s, we need unions, we need everyone working in their own corners advocating for accessibility and inclusion.
Anything less than that, and we will not be able to move the needle enough to notice change in this generation.
It takes a micro-level AND a macro-level response.
Social change, where people really feel that the needle moved, that is noticeable… usually takes 3 generations. But not always…
We are in a catch-22 when it comes to legislation changes. The government won’t enact legislation or funding commitments to items that they feel the majority of their constituents don’t want. Their goal is to get re-elected. If they don’t get re-elected they can’t pursue any of their goals. So, if the public doesn’t care about kids with disabilities and their access to an equitable education…. the government isn’t going to put a massive amount of money into that. They need to make their constituents happy. We also know that society is generally ableist. And oppressive. We are also dealing with evolutionary instincts. Humans are complex. We are a mix of beautifulness and survival instincts. When resources are tight, we want them for ourselves.
Everyone’s advocacy efforts are all part of the work. It all matters. Every single one of you. There is no one single solution or even one single group that is going to just fix everything in a couple of years. It takes massive amounts of people ALL advocating in our own corners. Micro-level and macro-level advocacy work. We can’t just change legislation. We need to change the hearts and minds of everyone to uphold and embrace the legislation even if it does change.
Having said all of this: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has” -Margaret Mead
Very true. It all starts somewhere. Seeds get planted by small groups that grow over time.
If you are someone who is belittling other parents’ advocacy efforts. Telling them there is no point to any of their work, and that the system will never change. Which is actually impossible, because systems always change. They are maintained by people and society changes all the time. Please, and I say this with love in my heart. Please find counselling or keep your comments to yourself. The human rights process may have been a waste of time for some people, which I am truly sorry. The human rights system enforces the Human Rights Code and creates the Duty to Accommodate which is the strongest piece of advocacy tool that we have as parents, and those cases that advanced the Code were because of parents who sacrificed. You are not helping anyone by belittling all of parent’s advocacy and telling them there is no point. You are now the one making this worse for them. When you make statements telling people to give up, you are now oppressing them. I have zero tolerance for that.
This is a marathon. Not a sprint.
It’s a team sport. We all need to train individually but run together.
Let’s build each other up and be supportive.
For further reading on social change I recommend the book: Let’s Move the Needle. An Activism Handbook for Artists, Grafters, Creatives, and Makers. By Shannon Downey
This is a VERY interesting decision as it is a parent claiming discrimination to not having equal funding and this unequal funding they felt was discriminatory. Funding is a reason many parents would like to file a class action against the Ministry. This decision supports the reality, that we can’t just sue the government over lack of funding. Especially, the Ministry of Education and Child Care.
And the main crux of the argument of why we cannot file a complaint against the Ministry of Education and Child Care in connection to funding is because they are just following the legislation that is voted on and passed in the Legislature. The Legislature creates the School Act. The funding is given to the school districts. The school districts make the decisions on how the funding is allocated. As stated below the Tribunal dismisses complaints against bodies whose only role in funding is oversight.
Every human rights decision that I have ever read that included the Ministry of Education in a complaint, has been dismissed every. single. time. I really encourage everyone to read this case in full. The analysis is very interesting. I thank this parent for filing such a complaint and allowing the tribunal to apply their interpretation and analysis so that we can learn from it and understand how the system works.
I really can’t say it enough, that if you think you have a case, filing complaints is a form of advocacy. Even if you personally “lose” it is not a loss for the community. This is a HUGE form of advocacy. It’s information and knowledge that lets us understand where the lines are. Where the boundaries are. We could end up wasting TONS of time and energy advocating in the wrong direction. These decisions are literally GOLD.
For those of you who have your children in online learning, this may be of particular interest. This parent was filing a complaint and a class action complaint.
Here is the complaint and the Ministry of Education’s main argument:
[2] The Complaints allege that the Ministry of Education [ Ministry ] discriminated against Ms. Ward, Praise, the Parent Class and the Child Class and the Child Class [collectively the Complainants ] in the provision of services contrary to section 8 of the Codeby failing to provide equal funding for students, paid to their parents who are the primary service providers of parent-directed educational programs. Parent-directed educational programs, the Complainants say, include homeschooling and a subset of distributed learning programs, now online learning, which require the delivery of the program by a parent.
in the provision of services contrary to section 8 of the Codeby failing to provide equal funding for students, paid to their parents who are the primary service providers of parent-directed educational programs. Parent-directed educational programs, the Complainants say, include homeschooling and a subset of distributed learning programs, now online learning, which require the delivery of the program by a parent.
[3] The gist of the Complaints is that children are statutorily required under the School Act to receive an educational program but if the child receives that program from a parent, the child receives less student funding than if that child attends a Board or Authority run educational program. The Complaints allege that this unequal funding has a discriminatory effect on both parents and children who choose to homeschool based on family status, marital status, gender expression, religion and sex.
[5]….. The Ministry’s main argument is that the Complaints seek a service that the Ministry does not provide to the public: “a direct funding program for parents who opt-out of the public or independent K-12 school system and homeschool their children.”
[25] The Ministry argues that the Complaints are seeking direct payments from the Ministry in order to provide educational programs and this is not a service the Ministry provides. It is not a service customarily available to the public. The Ministry says that while they do provide funding for education, it does not do so to the “public” but via Boards and Authorities in accordance with the relevant legislation. Those Boards and Authorities then provide services to the public as per the School Act and Independent School Act.
Some interesting key points in the analysis related to funding is:
[32] When the Legislature passes legislation, it is not providing a service to the public within the meaning of s. 8 of the Code :Phillips v. BC, 2019 BCHRT 76 at para. 14; Startek v. British Columbia (Ministry of Finance) 2022 BCHRT 117 at paras. 28-29. The issue whether the Complaints engage a service customarily available to the public turns on whether the Ministry is administering a service created by the applicable legislation, the School Act and Independent School Act, to which the Complainants are merely seeking access.
[34] The Complaints are focused on the Ministry’s omission of equal funding to, as Ms. Ward says, “the primary education service providers – parents”. In my view, the Ministry in creating its funding model abides by and is restricted by ss.106.1-106.4 of the School Act. [2] There is no provision in the School Act or the Independent School Act for the funding of educational programs provided by parents. The Ministry’s job is simply to apply the legislated criteria.The Complainants are not eligible for the funds that they seek because the Legislature has not included such funding in either the School Act or Independent School Act .
[35] The applicable legislation has not created or extended a service to the Complainants. The Legislature has specifically left out funding of educational programs provided by parents. The Tribunal in this situation cannot review the Ministry’s actions since the Legislature in creating the restrictions on funding, maintaining the limitation to fund only educational programs for Boards and Authorities, was operating in its sui generis law-making capacity. There is no reasonable prospect the Complainants will prove that the funding for parent-directed educational programs is a service provided by the Ministry within the meaning of the Code.
[45] In Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the province’s role in funding and overseeing education in the province was not sufficient to establish liability for decisions made by a school district about how to allocate its funding: para. 54. This reasoning is also reflected in Tribunal decisions dismissing complaints against organizations whose only role is funding or oversight:Hoffman and another v. BC Ministry of Social Development) and another , 2012 BCHRT 187 at para. 94; Hunter v. BC (Ministry of Health) and others (No. 2) , 2005 BCHRT 408 at paras. 24-26; Stone v. Coast Mountain Bus Company & others , 2005 BCHRT 50 at paras. 47-48.
[48] The Ministry’s application to dismiss the Complaints is granted.
It’s been quite a year for tribunal decisions. An explosion of decisions that have advanced the human rights code that I haven’t seen occur in a VERY long time. I hope the school districts are paying attention. They need to stop underestimating people. Families are advocating!
Human Rights Decisions
In the last 365 days we have had the following cases.
This case spread across Canada in over 60 different media outlets into large cities and small towns. Even internationally. Media list blog. Who would have ever predicted that would happen!?!
This case was a partial win by a self-represented parent. There are many key highlights of this case that advance the human rights code. It writes that you don’t need an IEP to be protected under the code, self-advocacy expectations are defined, and the most beautiful part is MEANINGFUL INQUIRY. Anxiety gets pushed under the rug as no big deal in schools. This case elevates the attention and seriousness of how anxiety impacts a student. It also brings up the topic of communicating a diagnosis between staff. It also highlights hindsight and how important it is for parents to be communicating to the school what they are seeing at home.
This case was also by a self-represented parent. It wasn’t a personal win for her, but due to her absolute persistence in completing this case AND waiting 15 months for the decision! It did advance the human rights code and the community as a whole has benefited. The jewel out of this case is that education staff are not allowed to give up. They have to continually keep trying by evaluating and adapting their methods. You would think that parents actually don’t need this in writing, but we do.
This case was again also by a self-represented parent. It confirms that the human rights tribunal will accept family status complaints from parents in connection to the discrimination or harm that their child experiences in an educational setting. This also links to another family status case that occurred at the BC Supreme Court level that confirmed that the tribunal has the authority to accept family status and education as a valid complaint. A public-facing decision, a turning point for parents with disabilities in education.
This case confirms that the tribunal is willing to name school districts in human rights complaints. FABULOUS. This case also is clear as a bell in saying to education defence lawyers that using TRB complaints will not be accepted for dismissal reasons. So, parents don’t have to fear that filing TRB complaints will compromise their human rights complaint. If anything, I think they help, as a way to gather evidence that the education staff submit. It’s a gold mine of documents that we can access that we would never even know existed.
SUMMARY: Human Rights Cases are very important advocacy tools to use when communicating with your child’s schools. It is very likely that the staff don’t even know what their legal human rights responsibilities are. These cases need to be APPLIED. Then when we all do this, we move the needle.
OIPC Decisions
We also can’t forget the OIPC decisions that occurred in the past year.
Way to go! Two of them were by parent(s)/guardians!
To read the other previous cases in previous years also by parents, here is the list.
Ombudsperson BC
This case came out this year about there not being an appeal avenue for a section 177. That is huge. Parents who receive these can now ask for what the appeal avenue is and if school districts don’t automatically tell them, then they are not following the recommendations and standard from Ombudsperson BC.
We also want to look back and appreciate the media articles that were spearheaded by parents. They brought their issues to the attention of the public via the media. That isn’t easy. Way to go! If parent(s)/guardians aren’t brave enough to do this, the public will assume everything is okay-dookie. We thank you!
Social movements are slow. And this is what advocacy for disability rights is. A social movement. It will always be too slow for anyone’s liking. Really. While we wait for change, harm is being done.
Some people feel defeated and think what is the point, the system isn’t changing.
Change very rarely occurs in leaps and bounds. Certainly not in human systems. It’s normal for it to be 2 steps forward, 1 step back, 3 steps forward, 1 step back,
It’s always messy. Never a straight line from A to B. More like a zig-zag all over the place. But this is how humans work. Especially in large groups. Societies. No way to get around that. Just need to muddle through it.
But we are seeing more advocacy tools pop up. Decisions and accessibility legislation. Families are advocating. More external watch bodies are taking notice. Change is slow. But it is occurring. The roots are growing.
What is scary and dangerous is when the system feels no one is watching. That they are untouchable. Then the system will change in leaps and bounds. It can always get worse.
We need to hold the line. Send the message that we are here. We are watching. We are learning. We will take action. And clearly, we have.
Let us focus on this: Many seeds have been planted this year. May they take root and grow
To my community of families, Happy Holidays, and I wish you all the best for 2025.
The school district and their lawyers are just waiting for you to do any of the following things listed below…literally sitting back, fingers crossed and waiting. They know what works. They do this all the time.
They can use your own decisions against you in multiple ways. Destroying your credibility at a hearing, filing a section 177 against you, getting your human rights complaint completely dismissed and with costs, shutting down complete communication with you, sending you a cease and desist letter or threatening a defamation lawsuit.
(And before we go any further, trust me, this blog is not from personal experience. For those of you who know which school district I am connected to, please don’t infer, none of these things have happened to me.)
This blog is from reading case law, newspaper articles, finding websites/YouTube videos of pissed-off parents and hearing their stories, hearing stories directly from other parents, and hearing through the grapevine ALLLLL of the multiple other stories floating around our community. This by the way is a national issue, not just a BC issue. So, if you are sitting in a small town in PEI, this stuff still applies.
To the people waiting for you to do any of these things… this is a chess game. It’s not a chess game to us, and its a hard pill to swollow just how strategic navigating the maze needs to be, but we need to realize that this is how its viewed by them. And we need to figure out what the rules are and follow them.
When we follow the rules, we are closer to being untouchable, and we can continue to advocate.
Here we go.
Rule #1 – Always be polite and respectful.
Don’t be rude. Be polite and respectful. Always.
Losing your cool and sending in an email that is just blasting them, insulting them, threatening them, etc, etc. is an easy way for them to be all over you and be backed up by the tribunal and court system. This will open the door for them to file a dismissal and get your case dismissed and apply for costs, file a section 177 etc, etc. They are literally hoping you go this route and you make it really easy for them to control you. They can’t wait for this to happen.
Sending in your emails doesn’t need to align with exactly how you feel. Your emails need to be written with strategy in mind. Your intent can be to either to document what is happening with the purpose of gathering evidence, to communicate your child’s unmet needs in ways that they can’t claim hindsight later on and trigger meaningful inquiry, to be problem-solving to resolve the immediate issues at hand etc. But making yourself feel better to release the stress valve has the potential of undermining your advocacy and destroying the opportunity for the systemic changes that you are hoping for.
It’s a painful part of the advocacy process to think so strategically, but this skill is really really important. I think of it as, we need to become Cheetahs. Cheetahs are loving parents, and affectionate with their young. They are also the most extremely patient and strategic hunters. We need to be cheetahs for maximum efficiency. We can’t let our advocacy efforts be undermined and swept aside because we lose our shit. They will poke us and poke us and just wait for us to explode. We need to have other release values and when we interact with them, we are in cheetah mode.
Rule #2 – No defamation, no naming
2. Don’t name or defame anyone on social media.
Defamation is a really easy hook to get you on. Defamation just needs to be said to one other person. It is ridiculous how fast they will jump on this.
2014 letter from school board lawyer warned against ‘defamatory statements’ about Tricia Rooney
That means on any social media site, in conversations with anyone else, you CAN’T name people. You are making yourself way too easy of a target.
I took a workshop on defamation. Here are my notes.
If you are in a heated battle with the school, keep your circle very small on who you let in. These need to be trusted people in your life. You can talk about your situation, just don’t name anyone.
Having fake social media accounts can be ways of interacting with support group FB accounts or posting anonymously can be a layer of protection that will aid in your untouchability.
Parents have had human rights cases dismissed and their social media posts were used against them.
Trust me, they troll your social media when you become a red flag to them.
You never know who is in a Facebook group. Just like it is easy for a parent to make a fake account to protect themselves, it’s easy for anyone to make a fake Facebook account. Facebook groups are public, not private.
Rule #3 – Don’t share confidential information
3. Don’t post content on social media that has the words CONFIDENTIAL on it. This again opens you up to them being able to threaten you with legal action and having the ability to control you.
This includes anything from the government that is sent to you in a password protected file or simply has the words CONFIDENTIAL at the top.
And yes… this is how the system stays in control and keeps everything hidden. I know. If you want to present this information as evidence in a hearing, that’s a different story. Stuff that is hidden away under privacy laws can still be used as evidence at tribunal hearings and court proceedings. This again is about being strategic about what we do. Be the cheetah. Wait it out. If you play the chess game right, you’ll be able to present the evidence when you need to and maximize your efficiency.
Rule #4 – Don’t protest
4. Do not protest a decision in a school by refusing to leave, or forcing your way into a classroom. Refusing to pick up your kid in the name of protest, I also don’t suggest. You are setting yourself up for a section 177 and you will be accused of not working in good faith with the school, you will not be following your duty to facilitate and your human rights complaint has the potential of being dismissed. If you refuse to pick up your child without good reason in the name of protesting, MFCD may be called.
Even if you adamantly disagree with the a decision that the school has made, they have the power to make those decisions whether you agree or not. It’s risky for them if they didn’t meaningfully consult with you, but the School Act and Supreme Court of Canada, do give them the power to make class placement decisions and reasonable accommodation decisions.
The only way to maintain your credibility and access to the school is to follow the internal and external complaint systems in a civil manner. I know, that they are the ones controlling the system and this isn’t going to be fair. Totally get it. It doesn’t matter. If you want to give them even more power and have them cut you off at the knees then behaving in a way that makes you non-compliant, or the staff don’t feel physically or psychologically safe around you will end up being a gift to them. It will be so easy for them to file a section 177. Next time you show up at the school the police will be called and you’ll be out the door so fast. Don’t do them any favors. Collect your evidence and nail them in due course. Patience.
Rule #5 – Knowledge and your values are power
5. This rule isn’t a rule on not what to do, this is a rule on what to do. This will also help to make you feel personally untouchable.
Know your stuff. That means human rights law, duty to accommodate, and external complaint avenues. Learn as much as you can. Knowledge is power. Ground your arguments in evidence and documentation. Stick to the facts. Don’t over-exaggerate. Don’t lie. Your credibility is everything.
This to me personally, is so important. Following your values is the most powerful tool to be untouchable. When you align your advocacy with your values, and how you want to treat people, strength is unlimited. What is your fuel? Unfairness? Systemic oppression? Lying? Even though people may be playing dirty with you, or lying to you, navigating your advocacy with how you want to operate and interact with people can give you a sense of emotional untouchability. It’s called inner peace. And it’s priceless.
Be one with the Cheetah. Make it hard for them. Don’t be easy prey. You’ve got this.
This mom speaks the truth. Thank you Ashley Roberts, The Dsylexia Initiative.
.
The government distributes society’s resources, and this distribution is not an equitable one. It is based on the wishes of the majority of voters. 27% of people have disabilities in Canada. An article by The Tyee, “Why is Vancouver Funding an Extremely Expensive Private Dyslexia School? questions how these resources are being divided. I question funding for private schools in general, as they seem to be getting a good chunk of taxpayers’ money. Yet, only families who can afford to pay costly yearly tuition fees can access their services, while the schools are escaping human rights violations due to their private business structure. Funded by the government, yet given an escape pod via the “undue hardship” justification test of a limited private business. As this parent feels, some specialized schools are providing the supports that kids aren’t getting in public schools. This option is not available to everyone. You need money. Lots of it. Every year. You need the time, ability and transportation to get your child there. Private schools are an impossibility for most.
Children are always going to be vulnerable. They are vulnerable because they don’t have a choice to leave. When children with learning disabilities are not getting proper instruction and support at school they experience levels of shame, embarrassment, chronic stress, anxiety, fear and sometimes bullying. Children are extra vulnerable when they have disabilities. They are in an education prison. They are completely dependent on a society that is ableist, misinformed and sees them as an easy target or easier to sweep aside.
The kids get the message daily that they are a burden to society. Someone who should feel lucky to be tolerated. These messages become internalized.
There are some legislative advancements with the federal and provincial Accessibility Acts.
However, for Canada to become barrier-free by 2040 it would entail a complete culture shift.
Employers post these boilerplate disability statements about being inclusive. However, inviting us to the table just isn’t enough. We need to be included at a level that we are participating in changing the shape of the table. Expecting us to carry on and fit into the same rules, and think the same way, isn’t inclusion. It’s not diversity. It’s performative and useless. For autistic and other neurodiverse individuals it can lead to burnout, mental health issues, and employment issues.
We know that change within society takes time. It’s painfully slow, that is true.
While we are waiting for society to evolve…we need to acknowledge harm is being done. Significant life-altering harm. Let’s take a look at the harsh reality.
This is not their individual failure. This is a societal failure. Just how people at the Oscars walk up to the stage to collect their awards, they thank all of the people who helped them along the way. They recognize that they didn’t get to that stage by themselves. Well, guess what folks, the kids dropping out, on the streets, self-medicating and ending up in prison didn’t get there by themselves either. We are failing them. Our education system is failing them. Society’s norms are not inflexible laws of gravity. We can change the structures of human systems. We can operate, function, interact and live differently. Our schools don’t need to function this way.
So, when we make our decisions…our laws, our policies, our education training programs…who are we willfully ignoring?
This question needs to be asked EVERY SINGLE time the government makes a decision.
Who is benefiting from this policy or law? Certain people are. It won’t be everyone. So who? Name them. Write it down.
Who is going to be potentially harmed by this policy or law? There will be people harmed in some way by everything they do. So who? Name them. Write it down.
Crowded classrooms push kids with disabilities out the door.
Underfunding schools pushes kids with disabilities out the door.
Lack of proper training of teachers and support staff pushes kids with disabilities out the door.
Attitudinal barriers towards kids with disabilities are pushing them out the door.
Adults are pushing kids with disabilities out the door.
Advocating for children with disabilities is hard work, but worthy work. However, I want to acknowledge there is a weathering process parent(s)/guardians all experience. We are slowly eroded by the constant dripping in the advocacy process and/or we become stalagmites building ourselves up by the constant dripping process. These two realities are often braided together.
We are desperate for adequate teacher training. I am not talking about workshops in universal design. I am talking about adequate training in specific disabilities and neurodiversity. We need early screening for dyslexia. We can’t wait for kids to fall behind in literacy skills in grade 3 or 4 and then to be on an assessment waitlist for 2 years that costs $5,000.00. That wait-and-see philosophy is pushing them out the door. It is a disaster. The inaction of our government is failing children and families. There was such hope with the Supreme Court Decision that there would be
If I read the Court’s decision (and the School Act) correctly, this and future provincial governments are now bound to provide funding that will ensure that all B.C. students, regardless of talents or disabilities, receive the kind of education set out in the School Act.
That would be a momentous change for schools across Canada as well — perhaps comparable to Brown vs Board of Education, the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down racial segregation in the schools.”
The government is failing children and families. It doesn’t make any friggen sense to not support children with neurodiversity and disabilities. When supported, kids with ADHD can thrive as adults. Dyslexic thinkers are also incredibly diverse thinkers. It makes no sense as a society to not help these kids flourish because it is possible. Kids with ADHD don’t even have a designation and dyslexia isn’t even a label that schools are allowed to use. “The term dyslexia is not commonly used in the educational system. It has been removed from legislation, policies, procedures and most teacher training programs.” Talk about erasure. We can’t ever shut up about this.
Even if you want to make the argument that the government has limited resources, it doesn’t even make any economic sense to be ignoring such a huge group of people.
As parent(s)/guardians navigate the BC Human Rights Tribunal system, something to think about is anonymization.
The tribunal will automatically anonymize your child and your name whether you ask them to or not. This is to protect the identity of a minor. Even if a parent and child ask to be identified, you are going to need to fight for it. As Lee Ehmke did in her daughter’s complaint. Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another, 2024 BCHRT 150
The anonymization process can be addressed by making a general application form 7.1 and submitting it to your case manager. You can make this application as soon as you find out that your complaint has been accepted.
You can decide to name your child’s school district. If you are in an independent school, their name. There are reasons to consider identifying them.
School districts can hide behind anonymization and they will be less concerned about having your complaint proceed to a hearing.
Here are some thoughts to consider on whether to name them or not.
Naming them could reduce the harm families are experiencing at the hands of district staff who feel untouchable. When people are in power, and untouchability becomes the systemic norm, it is very dangerous. The rule of law is an important concept in our country. No one should be untouchable.
The human rights tribunal system is an adversarial legal system. Parent(s) are unrepresented against lawyers, fighting out their case in the arena of law. An area that they are most likely, not educated or trained for. The human rights system can unintentionally become a barrier for parents to access justice due to the adversarial design and lack of access to free legal services and advice. The system is leveraged against the parents. We need to create as many human rights cases to help other parents not even need to enter this system. Human rights cases can be used in your advocacy and showing schools that they can be identified and that you plan to go this route may be the motivation they need.
School districts are notorious for lying, gaslighting and manipulating parents. They have the legislation to give them the power to be the decision-makers of a child’s school environment 5 days a week, 6 hours a day with poorly trained staff in disabilities and mental health. Schools could easily apologize and take accountability for the harm that was caused, but they never do. Only when issues are brought to the attention of the media. They are all so confident, that they just sweep us aside and move on to the next dumpster fire. This is a provincial and national issue. Historically, schools are entrenched in covering up all sorts of things and that toxicity is still normalized today.
We need to start naming school districts. It needs to become the norm. They may have the motivation to resolve issues with parents a lot earlier if they know that they will automatically have parents making applications to name them.
When you make your application, you can use the above points in your argument.
Keep this case handy parents if you want your district named. Paragraphs on this topic are 5-34.
(7) The Tribunal has discretion to limit publication of identifying information where a person can show their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure [Rules], Rule 5(6); Stein v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2020 BCSC 70 at para. 64(a). The Tribunal may consider factors like the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations, private details in the complaint, harm to reputation, or any other potential harm: JY at para. 30. It may also consider whether the proposed limitation relates to only a “sliver” of information that minimally impairs the openness of the proceeding: CS v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2019 BCCA 406 at para. 37. It is not enough to just assert that a person’s reputation may be tarnished: Stein at para. 64(c).
(29) I appreciate that naming the School could make it easier for motivated and diligent people to identify the people who were involved in the events of this complaint. In that respect, my order will not perfectly protect the people involved. However, I find that – unlike the individual educators and staff involved – there is a specific public interest in the identity of the School as a publicly funded institution serving the public: A obo B v. School District 61, 2014 BCHRT 105 at para. 11. I am not persuaded that this public interest is outweighed by the potential that some of the educators may then be identified. There have already been a number of complaints and proceedings involving the educators and staff, and Mrs. Ehmke points out that many people within the community already know about the complaint.
(30) I deny the application to limit publication of the name of the School.
Thank you to Mama Bear Lee Emhke for smoothing out the path on this one!
