Category: Uncategorised

The Flaw of Inclusion

There is one part of “inclusion” that worries me.

You can be in a room with 100 people and feel utterly alone.

Depending on the type of disability you have, you may not meet someone with the same disability as you until you are an adult.

Just because you are in the same room with a bunch of people, doesn’t mean you feel like you belong there. That you are accepted. Hell…it doesn’t even mean you’ll be tolerated.

Growing up with other people who don’t have anything in common with you, at the core, and experience life differently… is bizarre. It’s like watching a movie.

People with rare diseases will travel halfway around the world just to be in the same space as someone else so they can talk about everything they are experiencing and have someone say the words “me too!”.

There is a reason humans have such a strong desire to be around other people who mirror similar elements to themselves. We feel seen. Understood. Real.

Inclusion as a concept is great. Fully support it.

However….

This is one flaw that I really don’t like.

The one good thing about grouping people with similar characteristics together is that they get to meet other people just like them, and those friendships and bonds are stronger than anything else.

Kids in gifted programs will report that they finally meet other kids who are just like them, and they feel “normal” for the first time. Educate Deaf children together and we have the learning of American Sign Language, Deaf culture and a community. At stuttering conferences, many report that meeting other people who stutter is soul-saving.

Inclusion spreads people out, and those bonds are not connecting. Under the concept of inclusion, how are we going to meet each other?

If you are neurodivergent, ask yourself… how many of your friends are also neurodivergent?

I can tell you, I already know the answer. Your closest friends, you will say, all of them are neurodivergent. And I bet you, as an adult, meeting other people just like you and talking about your experiences has been part of your healing process and becoming comfortable in your skin.

If kids are spread out like a dropped clump of marbles in the education system, rolling out in all directions, how are they going to meet and have friendships with other kids that they can see themselves in? They won’t.

That makes my heart sink.

So, how can we have both?

How can we connect kids with each other and still give them an inclusive education?

CLUBS!?

What else can we do?

Some districts are closing their gifted programs. Are there other ways we can bring gifted kids together?

We need to figure out something. People with disabilities shouldn’t have to wait until they are adults to meet other people who are just like them. That is incredibly isolating.

The first time I met someone who stuttered, I realized we had more in common than the friends I grew up with. And my friends were the same gender as me, the same age, had the same teachers, grew up in the same neighbourhood. Yet, this person who I just met 5 min ago who stuttered, who was not my gender, not in my generation, from another country, we could say “me too” for the first time.

People who don’t have disabilities or who are neurotypical don’t realize this part. Just how important it is. You all get to see yourselves in another human being every time you leave your home and enter society.

A lot of us connect over the internet, Zoom into support groups, and gather at conferences.

In order for inclusion not to have its dark side, we need to figure out how to still connect kids and not just have them all spread out like a dropped clump of marbles.

More Blogs! More Lived Experience!

Hello Everyone!

I am adding 2 more blogs to my parent blog list.

I love it when people write and share themselves with all of us. There is so much to relate to and learn about.

  1. End Collective Punishment in Schools.

This is an excellent blog about the Appeals Process in Schools.

“You retell the story, often to someone hearing it for the first time—someone who cannot possibly hold the full weight of months of frustration, confusion, and cumulative impact. You must sound nice, since they might judge you, but you’re furious by then. Heart broken for what your child has suffered. They listen, they nod, and then they reiterate policy. Like you’ve never heard about policy:-(

It seems like less of a pursuit of resolution than an institutional ritual. Performative. Lip service.“

2. The Canary Collective

This is written by a teacher advocating for change in the system!!

“I am an educator, an advocate, and a witness to a system in urgent need of change. The Canary Collective is not about any one person. It is about the movement we must build together, a revolution grounded in truth, hope, and justice. It is a space where marginalized voices can speak freely, where silence is broken, and where a different future is imagined. Like the canaries once sent into coal mines to warn against toxic air, we raise our voices to reveal danger, name what is harmful, protect what is precious, and call for transformation before more harm is done. Together, we can reshape education into a system rooted in acceptance, belonging, and care. I believe that future is possible if we are brave enough to challenge discrimination, to dismantle exclusion, and to refuse the comfort of silence. This is a place for those who are ready to stop whispering and start building. Welcome to the Canary Collective.”

You will find these blogs listed on my Parent/Guardian blogs page

A big thank you to the creators for sharing themselves with us.

Another new HR decision – Intersecting Identity – Self-Representing Parent – A win!

I have written so many posts that start with New HR decision that it’s starting to sound ridiculous.

So, yes this is another new one. I know we just had a new one a couple of days ago.

I can’t tell you how exciting this is. This is the month of April, only four months into 2025 and we are already at 5 decisions with more to come. This is going to be quite the year!!

Is the Ministry of Education and Child Care paying attention to all of this????

They better wake up!

Here we go.

Decision #5 – This parent is self-representing. They won. The complaint is fully proceeding.

Child (by the Parent) v. School District, 2025 BCHRT 89

This case involves a couple of protected grounds.

[3] The Child identifies as Black and of African race, ancestry and place of origin. The Child has a mild Autism Spectrum Disorder [ ASD ], which the Parent describes as largely diagnosed from his late speech and asymptomatic.

This is a timeliness complaint

What is interesting about this case from an analysis point of view is that there were gaps between the discrimination and multiple allegations were beyond the one-year time limit, and yet it was still accepted.

[25] Having found multiple arguable contraventions of the Code , that are both timely and out of time, it is necessary to next consider whether the late-filed allegations form part of a continuing contravention.

[26] I first considered whether the allegations are of a similar character for the purposes of determining the existence of a continuing contravention of the Code . The School District argues the timely allegations are dissimilar because the timely allegations involve different children at different schools. I disagree with the School District. From my review of the allegations in their entirety, I agree with the Child that they involve the School District’s failure to properly respond in series of altercations where white male students harmed the Child for reasons related to his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and mental disability. At the same time, the allegations are of a similar character because the Child alleges the School District’s repeated responses to all these incidents were unfair to him for reasons related to the personal characteristics identified. In my view, the similar character of these allegations is not affected in any material way because they occurred at different schools and with different white male children.

[27] I have next considered the existence of gaps between allegations. I have determined that there are no significant gaps for the purposes of s. 22(2) of the Code in this case. I disagree with the School District’s approach to this question by looking at the entire timespan for the allegations in question. In my view, it is more appropriate to look at the length of time between allegations to determine whether they occurred in succession. Here, there were gaps of half of year to about nine months between most of the allegations and these are explained by the somewhat randomness of serious incidents happening when the white male students engaged the Child. The only possibly significant gap in my view, occurred between the November 2019 incident and the Spring 2021 incident. However, this gap is easily explained by the fact that during most of 2020 schools were closed due to pandemic restrictions and the Child was not in physical proximity to the students in question.

[28] Overall, I am satisfied the Child’s allegations from the June 2018 incident to the Spring 2021 incident allegations are of a similar nature in succession to the timely October 2021 incidents allegations. As such, the Complaint is a timely continuing contravention of the Code and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to determine whether it is in the public interest to allow any late filed allegations to proceed.

There are multiple allegations of bullying connected to racism and what I would label as ableism.

Here is an example.

[13] On October 20, 2021, the Child alleges three higher grade white boys followed him into the bathroom and one of the boys intentionally slammed a bathroom stall door into his face. The Child alleges this incident resulted in him chipping his two front teeth. He alleges the School District principal and vice principal were unmoved by the incident and did not want to report it to the police. The Child alleges the vice principal kept blaming him for screaming and shouting and rolling around on the floor as an attempt to magnify his autism behaviour to justify the other boys’ wrongdoing. Once again, the Child alleges the School District protected the white assailants from receiving any blame for the incident. This allegedly included the School District saying that they did not know which boy had caused the harm to the Child. The Child alleges this incident was a good example of the School District’s staff demonstrating their inclination to favour white children in altercations involving him [the October 20, 2021, incident ]

I encourage everyone to read this case in full.

The other human rights case that was connected to discriminatory bullying is this one. I’ll be adding this case now to that page as well.

Way to go, self-represented parent!

Accepted Human Rights Complaints in Education

Here is a list of some key human rights cases that were accepted and valid complaints under the Human Rights Code. There are more human rights complaints to explore in Canlii. For instructions on how to use Canlii click here.

It is very helpful to know what gets accepted by the BC Human Rights Tribunal. These examples give the public and the tribunal a peek into the education system. Exposure alone of these circumstances is advocacy and creates a data trail.

These cases can be used in our advocacy when communicating with the school.

EA not provided

IEP and designation not provided

Professional recommendations not included in IEP

Parents were not meaningfully consulted

Meaningful inquiry – The School didn’t investigate what the disability related barriers were and try to remove them

Equitable access to education – The Moore case

Hostile and rude teachers, not accommodating

Exclusion

Another exclusion example

Preventing a student from presenting at an assembly and mishandling an assembly incident.

Not providing reasonable accommodations – Dyslexia

Not being able to read, leaving for a private school – Dyslexia

Bullying

Allergies

Forced out of school (poor transition into high school)- paying for private school (Ontario)

Family Status (impact on the parent) – file within one year

Here is the page for a list of dismissals and timeliness applications over the last 10 years.

New Human Rights Decision – Professional Recommendations in IEP

Child (by Parents) v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2025 BCHRT 85

More important learnings from human rights decisions!!

This is a dismissal application. Parts of their complaint were dismissed but the part that is continuing is the allegation that the school didn’t incorporate professional recommendations into their child’s IEP.

The human rights tribunal is accepting this as a valid complaint, and it is proceeding. This case can be used to enhance your advocacy.

[66] The Child alleges that the School Board lost or did not read many of the reports that were provided to them, and that as a result, the recommendations contained in those reports were not incorporated into their IEPs. Therefore, they say, the Child’s disabilities were not properly accommodated. The Child says that had the IEPs been developed in line with the medical and psychoeducational recommendations contained in the reports provided to the School Board, their Parents would not have had to intervene with private support services in order to keep the Child at grade level. They say that because the recommendations in the reports were not incorporated into the Child’s IEPs, the Parents were required to provide the Child with tutoring, vision therapy, and auditory therapy, along with other interventions.

[68] The School Board admits that certain of the recommendations contained in the psychoeducational assessment and other medical reports were not included in the Child’s IEPs. However, the School Board says that the IEPs developed for the Child “are consistent with the recognized supports for students with a learning disability like dyslexia within British Columbia.” They say that many of the recommendations from the psychoeducational assessment report in particular were specific to programs available in Colorado, not in BC. They say the IEPs that have been developed for the Child were consistent with the Child’s Ministry of Education designation and “the information regarding [the Child’s] learning needs”, including the provision of a learner support teacher as well as modifications implemented by the classroom teacher. They note that the Child’s progress reports indicate that they have progressed “well” and “overall at grade level”.

[72] While the School Board took steps through the IEPs to accommodate the Child, based on the materials before me, I am not persuaded that they are reasonably certain to prove they took all reasonable and practical steps to remove the disability-related barriers faced by the Child. This allegation will proceed.

We already know from X by Y v. Z that it doesn’t matter what their grades are, its whether the school district removed the barriers to access their education equitably

[142] Y has said that the learning support provided throughout X’s education has not been enough for X to “reach the same level as his peers or possibly excel”. The District’s obligation is reasonable not perfect accommodation. As I have said above, reasonable accommodation is not necessarily measured by whether a student is meeting or exceeding certain standardized learning goals but rather by whether barriers have been removed to provide meaningful access to education.

As always, I extend much appreciation and thanks to the parents who are navigating this system and bringing these decisions forward.

Putting the pieces together

Accepted human rights complaints

Calling all Human Rights Lawyers

This is the bottleneck that parents are experiencing.

Parents want to hire lawyers for their human rights complaints, and they are struggling to find people. Some people are finding pro bono lawyers, and others aren’t. Some people can afford to pay lawyers and they are still struggling to find people. Some parents are lawyers themselves, but human rights isn’t their area of law.

I know there are legal-aid clinics reading my blog. I also know there are parents who are lawyers reading my blog, considering getting into this area. We need help!!

The need: Parents need lawyers to consult with for summary advice, and/or they need lawyers to take on their cases for human rights complaints. The non-profits that support this work are overwhelmed. They tend to shy away from education cases because they are complex, and they don’t have the capacity to handle these kinds of cases. Because of an overwhelmed legal system, parents are struggling to advocate for failings in the education system.

This is an area that needs expansion.

If there is a law firm that is willing to take this on and expand into this area, the need is great. Even to just offer summary advice. An hour of consultation here and there as they navigate the system can make a world of difference.

Parents all want to know… do I have a human rights complaint on my hands? They need the confirmation and validation. More parents would be filing human rights complaints with this confidence in their case.

If you are a lawyer or you know of someone in this field, please send me an email. I would love to be able to send you a referral.

If you are a parent and you have used a lawyer that you felt was positive, I would really appreciate it if you sent me their contact info. I would love to be able to send them a referral.

In the meantime, for parents looking for summary advice, please contact the BC Human Rights Clinic – Legal Services

Here is a list of disability law clinics and other legal-aid organizations that offer summary advice or lawyer referral services.

When you contact these places, I highly suggest you write out what you want to tell them to best utilize the time that you have with them.

Discrimination test

The test of discrimination is here from the BC Human Rights Tribunal website:

  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.

You are going to want to be able to explain to them what your child’s protected characteristic is, the harm they experienced, and how the harm is connected to their protected characteristic.

Timelines

Timelines are a great way to explain events. When lawyers present evidence in court, they tend to present the evidence in a chronological order.

Evidence

You may also want to explain what kind of evidence you have. Emails? Photographs? Video? Recordings?

Making the most of your time

I almost think of it as a 30-second elevator speech. People in business need to be able to succinctly give their business pitches. You want to make the most of your time when consulting with a lawyer, and the more organized you are in explaining the situation, the better they will be able to assess your situation, and you will get the most out of your time.

Consultation fees, I am being told, can range from $400 – $750 per hour.

If you are paying for a lawyer, every email you send or phone call you have will be added to your invoice for later. You will want to know how they will be invoicing you for your time with them. Human rights complaint settlements tend not to be high, so it will be important to keep your expenses low. The one great thing about being self-represented through the human rights complaint system is that you don’t need to worry about the school district lawyers playing games with you to drive up your lawyer’s fees.

Pro bono lawyers can sometimes take 2-3 weeks to call you back. Keep calling. Keep emailing people. Patience and persistence will be key.

You may want to go onto YouTube and search up videos on self-representation in Canada. There are a ton of videos on there. All tips and things not to do when representing yourself. Information overload. There are lots of articles stating that approx 50-60% of Canadians are navigating the court system without a lawyer… with self-representation on the rise. Very interesting.

If anyone has anyone specific or a law firm that they think should be on a referral list, please let me know.

More Students are Advocating!

Ministry of Education, I hope you are paying attention to this!!

New article posted April 3rd, 2025

Surrey students plan march to push for B.C. school funding

Surrey school district grappling with $16M shortfall in 2025-26 budget

https://www.cloverdalereporter.com/local-news/surrey-students-plan-march-to-push-for-bc-school-funding-7918382

When adults fail students in policy and legislation, students will be pushed to take things into their own hands.

Good for them!!!

Students were rallying previously in Surrey

There was this article:

Students rally against closure of White Rock learning centre

Supporters of South Surrey White Rock Learning Centre protest ahead of Surrey school board meeting

https://www.surreynowleader.com/local-news/students-rally-against-closure-of-white-rock-learning-centre-7763018

Students have been advocating by filing and speaking out in human rights complaints about the discrimination they have been experiencing in the education system. Here is the blog about that: The Next Generation of Student Advocates

I have started a new page to keep track of the advocacy activities of the students.

I have so many mixed emotions when I see students uprising. It’s a mix of feeling so proud of them and wanting to cheer them on. I also feel so embarrassed and ashamed to be part of the age of adults who are all in the same age bracket as me, who are making these ridiculous decisions and not properly funding schools. Our generation is creating such a mess, and students are being pushed to their limits. They are now forming a march. We are failing them!

I hope I am helping to share their advocacy.

I am sending this blog to the Ministry of Education this weekend. So shameful!

Blog: Budget Time!

Individual Education Plan (IEP) – They aren’t just Words on a Page

IEP’s can play an important role in providing your child an equitable education. They are important.

We have law, policy and teachers’ standards on our side.

As written in the human rights decision P (by KD) v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) and another, 2025 BCHRT 62 the Ministry of Education made it clear:

[70] …..The Ministry says IEPs do have a legal effect and function, as there is a valid legislative and policy framework that provides both authority and guidance for IEPs.

For more information about how the Ministry views IEPs in terms of a written contract or requiring a parent signature, please read paragraphs 66 – 71 in the above human rights decision.

So what do they mean by valid legislative and policy framework?

Authority School Act, Section 182 (2) (a)

On the Ministry of Education’s Inclusive Education website they say this:

“School Districts/Independent School Authorities have the autonomy to develop their own IEP template or choose the SMART Goal Template, or Competency Based IEP Template found on MyEducation BC. Specific templates are not mandated as long as the goals used have measurable outcomes.”

The Ministry of Education has an Inclusive Education Manual (2024), and section C is all about developing an IEP

Here is the Ministry’s Guidelines on IEPs for independent schools

Here is the Inclusive Educaiton list of policies and orders

If you are interested, here is a list of all of the School Act Ministerial Orders.

Here is a list of their policies for public schools.

On your own school district’s website, they will also have information about IEP’s and the consultation process.

Here are two excellent resources on information about IEPs and IEP meetings.

The BCCPAC has a guide for parents specifically for IEPs

Inclusion BC has a guide for Inclusive Education. Chapter 5 is all about IEPS.

Two notable human rights cases:

  1. The duty to consult
  2. Student (by Parent) v. School District 2023, BCHRT 237 – Your child doesn’t need to have an IEP in order for them to be protected by the Human Rights Code

Something else very important to keep in mind is that the Human Rights Code Supersedes classroom teacher autonomy. Your child’s teacher has to follow the Human Rights Code.

IEP’s are working documents.

The final decision is up to the school on what is written on your child’s IEP but they must consult with you. And it needs to be meaningful consultation. If they tell you they are only giving you 30 minutes for an IEP meeting and you didn’t have enough time to discuss everything and you feel in the IEP isn’t appropriate for your child, you can advocate that 30 min isn’t enough time for meaningful consultation. Some parents get letters being sent home that IEP meetings aren’t even happening. They get a paper copy and they are asked to provide feedback by email. umm. NO!!! If you want a meeting to discuss your child’s IEP at ANYTIME In the year, you can advocate for that.

If the school doesn’t allow this, then you can escalate it through the district and just keep going higher and higher.

The IEP is a working document.

For this human rights case X by Y v. School Distrct Z 2024 BCHRT 24, the expectation for them to defend that they offered reasonable accommodations is this:

120] Ultimately, on a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the District discharged its duty to accommodate X in his grade 2 year by reviewing the Diagnosis Report, developing an IEP, making various support people and strategies available that were incorporated into the classroom and outside, reviewing progress and changes, and adapting its approach in response……

If they aren’t reviewing progress and changes and adapting their response to your child’s needs, you have internal and external complaint options.

There is already legislation, policy and human rights law that will enforce consultation. You can use these in your advocacy.

It is very important to keep documentation of all of your emails with the school and letters being sent home. If you are getting any communication that parents are not allowed to attend their child’s IEP meeting, you may also want to alert the Inclusive Education department in the Ministry.

inclusive.education@gov.bc.ca

IEPs have meaning. They are important. They are a tool.

If you have a teacher who is refusing to follow any of the legislative framework and policies you can always file a TRB complaint.

This teacher was disciplined for the following regarding IEPs:

During the 2021-2022 school year, the following events occurred while Schwarz was employed as a teacher in a learning support program at School A, working with a small group of upper elementary school students (“Class A”):
a. Schwarz failed to properly follow procedures for students’ individual education plans
(“IEPs”):
i. IEPs must be reviewed annually to reflect individualized goals, adaptations,
modifications, services and measures for tracking progress. Teachers must
offer parents an opportunity to consult about their child’s IEP.
ii. Schwarz failed to plan appropriately for the fall 2021 IEP deadlines and
only updated the students’ pictures and changed the name of the responsible
teacher to her own name, before submitting the IEPs to the School principal.
Schwarz did not make changes to the substance of her students’ IEPs and
did not appropriately consult with parents regarding the IEPs.

You don’t need to accept teachers not consulting with you or not updating your child’s IEP.

You have advocacy options:

Internal – keep advocating all the way up the next levels. You will have an inclusive education department in your child’s school district. Inclusive BC in their manual, Chapter 7 is all about how to advocate in the education system effectively.

External – TRB, Ombudsperson, Human Rights Tribunal

Some schools automatically reach out in the spring for a review of the IEP. If your child’s school does not, and you would like this to happen, feel free to send them an email.

You also don’t need to wait for the spring. If at any point in the year, you feel there needs to be some changes, you can request a meeting.

Your child has a human right for an equitable education. The IEP is a very important tool that can help them have those accommodations in place. OH, and one final thing. Accommodations are not earned with good behaviour. Children with disabilities have a right to their accommodations because they are breathing.

New HRT Decision – EA taken away, IEP – VERY Informative!

We have another recent decision from the HRT and there is a LOAD of interesting stuff in here!

This is a dismissal application.

P (by KD) v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) and another, 2025 BCHRT 62

Many thanks to the parent(s)/guardians who stuck it through and brought this decision into fruition.

There are so many good bits in here, I am creating a list before you even dive into the blog. I want you to keep reading all the way to the end and get all good stuff.

  • IEP – what’s required to defend in a dismissal
  • The role of an EA – defence by the SD, 1;1 criteria
  • IEP written contract/legal perspective from the Ministry
  • Educational program required while kids are not physically in school
  • Ministry again dismissed in case, and why.

This is what the complaint is about

[2] P alleges that during the 2019/2020 school year, the respondents did not provide her an appropriate education by refusing her at-home instruction, one-to-one Educational Assistant [ EA ] support, and not following her Individual Education Plan [ IEP ]. P also alleges that the Ministry changed the requirements for IEPs which rendered them ineffective. Finally, P alleges that the School District caused her harm by failing to properly address abuse by another student and took her on an inappropriately long walk despite her scoliosis, which caused her pain and swelling.

[8] P has disabilities including Down Syndrome, scoliosis, and other chronic medical conditions, including heart and lung issues.

[9] For context, P says her time at secondary school from grades eight to twelve included the following negative experiences:

a. Her one-to-one EA assistance was taken away by the school causing her significant trauma.

b. Her parents did not receive a book list or course outlines.

c. She did not receive homework as she was not being taught.

d. She was physically abused by other children while staff left her unattended.

e. She was forced to sit by herself without any form of intellectual stimulation.

Here is also what I find VERY interesting. The parents were alleging that the school didn’t follow the IEP. BUT because they didn’t specify what aspects of the IEP weren’t being followed, this portion of the complaint was dismissed.

SO! What do we learn from this? BE SPECIFIC. If you are going to be alleging your kids IEP wasn’t followed you are going to need to identify exactly what on the IEP wasn’t followed.

a. Failure to follow IEP

[24] I am not persuaded that P has taken the allegation that the School District did not follow her IEP out of the realm of conjecture. She has not specified what elements of her IEP were not followed during the 2019/2020 school year.

Got it!

So this was part of the complaint.

“a. Her one-to-one EA assistance was taken away by the school causing her significant trauma.“

I wonder how many other parents could be filing over this reason!

There are so many interesting things about this case. Something else that has come up a lot with students who are experiencing exclusion. School districts are still required to provide an education program even if kids aren’t physically at school.

b. Denial of at-home schooling

[30] School districts in this province are required to make educational programs available to all school-age children registered in the district. In certain circumstances, this includes at-home or “homebound” instruction. The School District has provided an excerpt from the Minister of Education’s Special Education Services Manual of Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines [ Special Education Manual ] which explains homebound programming in BC. It states:

School districts are required to make available an educational program to all persons of school age who are resident in its district and who are enrolled in a school in the district. School districts must maintain appropriate educational programs for students who are anticipated to be absent from school for extended periods of time. Instruction should be initiated as soon as possible. Authorization from the physician or public health nurse should be received prior to services being provide to students with health problems.

Students eligible for homebound services include:

· Students who are absent from school for medical reasons such as injury, disease, surgery, pregnancy, psychological reasons, etc. […]

[32] P says she required at-home instruction because she could not regularly attend school due to her disabilities. The evidence from both parties demonstrates that P was frequently absent from school for extended periods of time due to disability-related illness. A document prepared by P’s school from October 2019 states that P’s “attendance record throughout high school has been a concern – typical attendance is 10-20 days per year.” For the 2019/2020 school year, the parties agree that the plan was for P to only attend in person one day per week. Based on this information, the Tribunal could reasonably find at a hearing that P did not receive the instruction offered to other students in the district because she could not attend school in person for disability related reasons, and she was not provided instruction in her home. I am satisfied that this information takes out of the realm of conjecture that P’s disability was a factor in the adverse impact she experienced as a result of the School District’s decision to deny at-home instruction.

For parents whose children who have experienced a physical incident at school. If you want to tie it to rights-based advocacy (the Human Rights Code), you need to tie the behaviour to their protected ground (disability).

[55] While I acknowledge the seriousness of this allegation, P has not explained how her disabilities were a factor in the alleged adverse impacts of either the attack or the school’s response. Accordingly, although there is a contradiction in the evidence regarding whether this incident occurred, even if I accept P’s account as true for the purposes of this application, I am not persuaded that she has taken out of conjecture that there is a nexus between any adverse impact and her disabilities. For this reason, this allegation cannot proceed.

We already have a decision from the BC HRT, supported by the BC Supreme Court, that schools are responsible for providing students with a discriminating harrassment free school environment. See the successful case on bullying. “School Board has the duty to provide students with an educational environment that does not expose them to discriminatory harassment.”

Bullying or a one time physical attack needs to be connected to a protected ground.

Also in the case…

As usual, when parents try and link in the Ministry of Education, they always get dismissed.

[75] I agree with the Ministry that the complaint against it should be dismissed in its entirety.

Here is why

[73] …. The Ministry denies this allegation and reiterates that it is not involved in making decisions regarding individual students.

And the overall conclusion was that part of the complaint was dismissed, other parts continued.

Another part I thought this part was VERY interesting….

[48] The School District says one-to-one EAs are limited only to students who are medically dependent and require assistance with toileting. Generally, this is most often at elementary school and only occasionally at middle school. At secondary school, the School District typically shares EAs, to allow for independence and growth.

[49] The School District says that P did not require a one-to-one EA, because she was not medically dependent and because she did not require assistance with toileting. The School District says each class included a teacher and at least one EA to provide support. P always had an adult near her. The purpose was to build P’s independence, which was the most important aspect of her Grade 13 education programming. Due to P’s progress in achieving independence, the School District says she could do many tasks independently and safely under the supervision of staff. According to the School District, one-to-one EA support would not have been conducive to P’s independence goals.

Always know that the school district is going to argue anything they want. They can make up any reason/excuse that they want. That DOESN’T mean that the tribunal is going to believe them or accept what they are saying.

The school district’s lawyers will ALWAYS have a response for everything. It doesn’t mean their argument is a strong argument or that they have evidence to back it up.

You can argue back. The decision maker is the tribunal. NOT the respondent’s lawyers, no matter how convincing or confident they want to appear.

When we look at the recent case for exclusion (not this case, another one), the tribunal was asking…

Student Y by Grandparent S v. Board of Education of School District No. X, 2024 BCHRT 353

[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

They bolded the anything else, not me.

If there is a negative impact on your child not having an EA, you need to document the harm.

Always remember that the district is responsible for removing barriers.

Not providing the appropriate support for them to access their education can be explained to the tribunal as a barrier. The lack of an EA could mean they aren’t providing your child a ramp. Just because the school district says only kids with medical needs&/toiliting support needs get a 1:1, doesn’t mean the tribunal will support that decision-making. The tribunal may feel the criteria for accessing an EA is discriminatory for other kids with other disabilities.

This is why bringing our cases forward for the analysis of the tribunal is so important and a strong form of advocacy. By creating these cases and decisions they are creating a path with street lamps for other parents to walk down when they advocate for their own kids.

Another part that is so fascinating is what they said

[68] The Ministry says that IEPs are not written contracts, as set out in the document “Individual Education Planning for Students with Special Needs: A Resource Guide for Teachers” (Province of British Columbia, November 2009) [ Resource Guide ]:

Q: Should the IEP be signed by the parent and a member of the school-based team?

A: There is no provincial requirement for signatures on an IEP. It should be clear to parents that IEPs are not written contracts, but rather working documents into which they have input along with the staff who work directly with the student. Some schools include signatures on a separate page to document who was present and who received a copy of the IEP.

[70] However, the Ministry disagrees that just because IEPs do not require a parent’s signature the School District is not required to adhere to them. The Ministry says IEPs do have a legal effect and function, as there is a valid legislative and policy framework that provides both authority and guidance for IEPs.

For parents self-representing, you will probably want to keep this case handy to use in your arguments to the tribunal.

A BIG THANK YOU to KD who is self-representing P. This decision is LOADED with helpful information.

I have created a new RESPONDING TO DISMISSAL page and here is a page with all of the dismissal and timeliness applications in education involving students in the last 10 years.

Parents take Ministry of Education to Court – Win for Equitable Education

This case is a fascinating read.

Parents took the Ministry of Education in Alberta to court.

Kerber v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 98 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/parents-take-province-to-court-over-order-keeping-some-kids-out-of-classrooms-during-strike

There are two parts that stick out to me, that I think you will all find interesting.

The Ministry trying to disconnect from their own orders they create and the labour shortage paragraph.

Let me hook you in with this line:

[152]      The Charter guarantees equal access to education for all students; the corollary effect is that that the equitable principle must be applied in times of labour or resource shortages.  Here, what is apparent is that there was no consideration of how the reduced resources could be redistributed among all students.  It was assumed that minimal disruption to the system would result by targeting only a sub-set of students – those who use an EA. However, this approach failed to consider that non-disabled students might suffer the least amount of harm since they do not have the same disadvantages as the students with disabilities and could adapt to an at-home learning program more easily, i.e., some non-disabled students switch to at-home learning to free up more resources for complex-needs students, or some of them, to attend school in-person even with the EAs presently unavailable.

EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES MUST BE APPLIED IN TIMES OF LABOUR OR RESOURCE SHORTAGES. Woohoo! Thank you!

This case is in relation to a strike.

[1]               Approximately 3,700 complex-needs students have been advised by their schools that they must continue their education programs on an at-home or a rotating in-school basis because of the strike involving support workers at Edmonton Public Schools. This situation has persisted for over five weeks. 

Why?

Because…..

[7]               On January 9, 2025, CUPE 3550 issued a notice that it would be going on strike as of January 13, 2025. A range of support staff, including administrative assistants, clerks, educational assistants, food preparers, interpreters, library technicians, licensed practical nurses, speech language pathology assistants, and technicians have been on strike since that date.

So the Ministry of Education in Alberta did this.

[9]               On January 12, 2025, the day prior to the strike, the Minister of Education, Demetrios Nicolaides, signed Ministerial Order #002/2025. The Ministerial Order states:

I, Demetrios Nicolaides, Minister of Education, pursuant to section 4 of the In-person Learning Regulation, exempt The Board of Trustees of Edmonton School Division from the application of section 2 of the regulation to provide an in-person learning option, at the schools under its authority, to students who require an educational assistant due to complex needs where the continued attendance of those students at in-person learning may risk the health and safety of the student or other students or staff, subject to the terms and conditions in the attached Appendix.

Which means kids with complex needs are being excluded from in-person learning.

So 4 parents took the Ministry of Education to court.

[4]               The Applicants, who are four complex-needs students affected by the Ministerial Order, seek an interlocutory injunction suspending the operation of the Ministerial Order or, alternatively, an exemption to the Ministerial Order, until the summary judgment or trial can be heard and determined on the Charter issue.

The Ministry of Education tried to pass the issue and blame the school district. Saying the school district didn’t have to follow the order they were just given permission to do so. (OMG! Insert huge eye roll. I actually laughed out loud when I read this!)

[26]           Alberta argues that the Ministerial Order does not require the ESD to stop providing in-person learning to particular students; it merely permits the ESD to make decisions about at-home learning considering the safety of all students and staff within its schools in light of the strike action. 

The court saw through that BS.

[40]           While Alberta is correct that the Ministerial Order does not require any student to learn at-home, the Ministerial Order is the permissive enabling enactment that grants the ESD the authority to make decisions about which students must switch to full or partial at-home learning. Alberta is the correct party to name in this application.

So Ministries of Education across Canada, if you write discriminatory policies don’t blame the school districts for acting on them.

For those who like legal mumbo-jumbo, there are various forms of legal analysis in this decision.

The conclusion was that the parents won the injunction they were seeking.

And as mentioned before I really like this paragraph

[152]      The Charter guarantees equal access to education for all students; the corollary effect is that that the equitable principle must be applied in times of labour or resource shortages.  Here, what is apparent is that there was no consideration of how the reduced resources could be redistributed among all students.  It was assumed that minimal disruption to the system would result by targeting only a sub-set of students – those who use an EA. However, this approach failed to consider that non-disabled students might suffer the least amount of harm since they do not have the same disadvantages as the students with disabilities and could adapt to an at-home learning program more easily, i.e., some non-disabled students switch to at-home learning to free up more resources for complex-needs students, or some of them, to attend school in-person even with the EAs presently unavailable.

And yes I too would like to thank these parents for bringing forward education cases under legal analysis.

[161]      I wish to thank counsel for their excellent submissions.

[162]      I also wish to extend my gratitude to the parties and the families for their participation in this important issue.

If you want to skip the legal analysis and just go to the conclusion at the bottom, it starts on paragraph 153. Here is some of it.

[157]      The nature of the harm that the Applicants would suffer is significant.

[158]      The nature of the legislation under attack is the provision of education – a fundamental service owed to all young people.

[159]      The public interest lies in ensuring equitable treatment of all students during a labour shortage and a fair redistribution of available resources that does not discriminate based on a disability.