Daughter M by Mother K v. Board of Education of a Vancouver Island School District, 2019 BCHRT 274
The school district applied to dismiss this case, but the Human Rights Tribunal dismissed parts of it and allowed other parts of the compaint to continue.
There is a lot of information in this case I highly suggest you read through everything and maybe something in here can help you with processes and what you can expect the school district to do, if your child has severe allergies.
[2] Daughter M has severe allergies to fish and tree nuts with a risk of anaphylaxis. The Respondent, Board of Education of a Vancouver Island School District [School District] is the entity legally responsible for the delivery of public education in that part of Vancouver Island in which the School is located. More specifically Mother K alleges that the Respondent has discriminated against Daughter M in the provision of public education by failing to provide a learning environment that is reasonably safe considering Daughter M’s physical disability, thereby denying her access to the same safe learning environment otherwise available to all children in British Columbia.
13] Mother K alleges that Daughter M’s condition of Anaphylaxis is a serious, life-threatening and fast-acting allergic reaction and involves one or more of the body’s systems. It is typically characterized by swelling of the tongue or throat, shortness of breath, overproduction of mucus, rash, vomiting, light headedness, low blood pressure, rash or localized swelling. Mother K submits that anaphylaxis may result in death if not promptly and properly treated. Most commonly, anaphylaxis is treated by the administration of epinephrine by injection. Mother K submits that anaphylaxis is a physical disability as that term is used in the Code.
36] While the School District examines the minutiae of the Complaint, I am not prepared to say that the broad Complaint, as framed by Mother K does not disclose a potential violation of the Code. A disability, anaphylaxis is identified requiring vigilance in view of identified hazards may be proven to be an adverse impact. Additionally, it is the disability that requires the vigilance, thus establishing the basis for the required nexus. Accordingly, the application under s. 27(1)(b) is denied.