Ministry of Education & WILFUL BLINDNESS??

Can the Attorney General intervene with the Ministry of Education over Wilful Blindness??

Legal term – Wilful Blindness: “The Supreme Court of Canada held that wilful blindness is best described as “deliberate ignorance” and emphasized that it should be treated as a state of mind that is equivalent to actual knowledge.” & “Wilful blindness…involves no departure from the subjective inquiry into the accused’s state of mind which must be undertaken to establish an aider or abettor’s knowledge.” (Verdon-Jones S, 2020, p.98)

  1. Deliberate Ignorance of Case Law Regarding Counselling Notes

I emailed the Ministry of Education and their Legislation department on October 27th, 2021 and informed them of a gap in their legislation connected to counselling notes, and an order from the OIPC (Office of Information Privacy Commissioner) and the upheld decision of such an order by the BC Supreme Court.

I have blogged about it.

The Ministry of Education ignored my multiple emails and my attempts at communication. I filed an Ombudsperson complaint in early December, which forced them to communicate with me and on March 7th, 2022 we finally had a conversation. They acknowledged the gap in the system.  They have been aware for 7 months and so far…I haven’t seen or heard of any changes. The Board of Education has also been aware since October 26th, 2021 and I have not seen or know about any attempts at updating policy to reflect case law, which the Ministry of Education states is their responsibility.  They are also ignoring my emails regarding this topic.

  • Deliberate Ignorance of Human Rights Violations across the Province

Due to a Freedom of Information request and a phone call with the finance department it was revealed that the Ministry of Education isn’t tracking human rights violation financial data that are occurring across the province. The Freedom of Information on the financial implications of such complaints had to come from the Ministry of Finance. Talk about deliberate ignorance.  I have also written a blog about this topic.

  • Deliberate Ignorance in the Professional Conduct Unit department. (Formerly – Teacher’s Regulation Branch)

I have emailed the Ministry of Education, the Executive Director of the TRB and the Commissioner. I have raised serious issues regarding their process and their legislation and the connection with Ombudsperson. They refuse to respond or discuss these issues. I am not telling them their welcome mat is crooked, I am telling them their house is on fire. They undemocratically responded by closing the door. There will be an upcoming blog about this. It’s been over a year and processes are still occurring with Ombudsperson regarding these issues. More to come about this later. Last year I blogged about a call for fair process. Since then, the story gets deeper. For those who need some inside tips on the process, here you go.

  • Deliberate Ignorance of Educational Malpractice

When I presented the Ministry of Education with a document containing evidence of my allegations of educational malpractice, they referred me to Ombudsperson and the Teacher’s Regulation Branch. Both due to systemic and legislative reasons were dead ends. When I went back to them, they apologized and said there was nothing they could do. It turns out there are no avenues for accountability in the education system regarding educational malpractice. Nothing.

What are we supposed to do when we have a government body refusing to uphold case law, deliberating ignoring human rights violations, closing the door of any conversation related to systemic oppression, and having no accountability system for allegations of malpractice?

Anyone have any ideas?????

I’d love to hear them.




Verdon-Jones, Simon N. (2020). Criminal law in Canada: Cases, questions, and the code. (7th edition). Top Hat.

Freedom of Information Request Denied – Ombudsperson

Friday May 20th, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Ombudsperson BC requesting the following information.

“I would like data of the past 10 years, (May 2012- May 2022) of how many parents have submitted complaints with the Teacher’s Regulation Branch, and how many of those complaints were investigated by an investigator. Please separate the data by year.”

Today, May 25th my request was denied. In a letter from the Deputy of Ombudsperson it was explained to me that FIPPA has very limited access to Ombudsperson due to that they are an office of the Legislature and I can only access information they post publicly. They recommended I look at their annual reports.


I went through all of their authority statistics reports. I can’t get any information specific on the Professional Conduct Unit (formerly Teacher’s Regulation Branch), only under the Ministry of Education. Based on the information in their authority statistic reports, I have created a graph for easy consumption.

This graph depicts the number of files Ombudsperson opened connected to the Ministry of Education from 2011-March2011. Data for this previous year will be posted on the Ombudsperson website in a month or two.

Here is a table version of the same data.

I find their annual reports and authority statistics reports to be very interesting. I highly encourage people who are interested in human systems, data and social justice to take a look.

For each file that was opened, you need to be so frustrated with your situation that you are filing a complaint with Ombudsperson, and be willing to wait months for something to be resolved…or not.

I have recently submitted an FOI request through the Ministry of Education requesting very similar and more detailed information. I will keep you all posted.

Also, keep in mind the the Ministry of Education is not tracking any Human Rights Complaint data. As I have blogged about previously, through another FOI request result.

Defamation. You said what?

I had the wonderful opportunity to attend the defamation lunch and learn put on the PLEO society today.

I recommend it to anyone who is interested. I took notes, and these are them below. Some of the terms I jotted down for future reference, and let me acknowledge that I think this workshop could have gone on for a week, there is just so much to discuss and talk about, so these notes are no way an exhaustive list on the topic.

Hopefully you can understand my notes or some of these terms can help you in your own research or lead you to inquire with legal minds about the topic. As someone who blogs, I find this topic fascinating. I can see how this area of law and the discussions around free speech are just going to intensify. Free speech to me is a VERY worthy conversation.


Defamation is an area of law – protecting someone’s reputation who has had bad things said about them. Hatred, ridicule or contempt.

Said something about you, that it’s published, defamatory – something with a real sting to it.

Liable or slander

Oral or written – can take either form

Even if it’s deleted, still repercussions. It wont matter that it’s been deleted.

Defamation law around hundreds of years old

Someone is presumed to have a good reputation. The damage in defamation go to repair the harm in your reputation. You would need to prove your loses, what you lost due to the defamation statements.

Is a statement defamatory. The judge would decide – What does the statement you made actually mean?

The judge would need to decide if it went beyond insult or criticism.

You can have clear defamatory statements or it can be an innuendo.

Social media has been wonderful for defamation lawyers. Social media posts are not personal conversations, they are to the world. Lawsuits are on the rise.

Sometimes defamation lawsuits draw more attention to the statement and can make things worse.

It is not just a person it can also apply to an organization.

The organization can defame or be defamed. The person who said those things, can also be sued along with the organization.


Truth is a defense – the responsibility would be on the defendant (person who is being sued for defamation) is on them to prove that it is true.

Defense of Fair comment – free speech rights.  – matter of public interest

It can’t be said in a malicious purpose. Eg. You got fired, and so you are making a statement

Two types of privelage. Absolute privelage and qualified privelage (moral obligations, etc) Duty to warn

Duty to warn – is protected.

Qualified privelage is very narrow. Saying you were abused in a tweet, wont cover this.

Right to speak vs. Right to keep a reputation

The law does not protect a sexual assault survivor to speak their truth. The survivor can be sued.

The protection of Public Participation Act 2019. PPA – what kind of speech do we want to protect. The legislation is still new. Not enough case law.

Be ready to back up your statements. If you can support it, than you can make it.  Present it as a fair comment.  You can still be sued, even if you have a defense. They can sue you, just to sue you.

Who is your audience, who are you doing this for? Why are you saying this?

Defamatory is very accusatory, pointing fingers as someone specific

An opinion has be to be one that is reasonably held.

Comments meant to be kept in a friends social media group can be shared

Republication – recent case law

You can be liable for republicizing someone else’s comment. One person posted on Facebook and other people commented. The originally poster was found responsible for other people’s comments. Due to – It was the probable consequences of making such a post in the first place.

You can’t control where your posts go.

Term – Fair dealing

Don’t be fearful about commenting, but do be respectful. If you get it wrong, apologize. A comprehensive apology online.  It stops the damages clock.

If you do defame someone, use your words to deescalate and apologize.