The timing of this decision was spot on.
This decision was released January 13th and the Ombudsperson announcement was the day after on January 14th.
Student Y by Grandparent S v. Board of Education of School District No. X, 2024 BCHRT 353
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?
Very interesting times ahead. Very!
Here is a case of exclusion from Ontario.
This case led to the Duty to Facilitate.
https://www.speakingupbc.com/duty-to-facilitate-responsibility-of-the-parents-guardians/