BCEdAccess Society

Show of hands…

How many families of disabled children are carrying a mountain of debt because only one member of the family can work due to ableism and constant advocacy in the education system?

How many single parents are on government support because they can’t work due to their disabled children being excluded from childcare or school?

I have some good news to report and then there is SHOCKING news.

First, the good news.

In a decision on a timeliness application, Parent v School District 2024 BCHRT 113, the tribunal confirms that parents can file a complaint under family status in connection with their child’s human rights discrimination case. I encourage you to read the decision in full.

They say this is not unique and cite Independent School Authority v. Parent, 2022 BCSC 570 as evidence that this has been confirmed before. The timeliness application was not rejected because the school doesn’t owe “a service” to the parents, as originally stated in a human rights complaint decision, which rejected parents being connected under family status in Habetler obo Habetler v. Sooke School District and B.C. (Ministry of Education), 2008 BCHRT 85

When you represent your child in a human rights complaint, any money received during a settlement or from a hearing decision will go directly to them. If you have any financial losses due to your child’s exclusion or emotional harm, then you have also experienced an adverse effect. So, parent(s)/guardians, you can submit a complaint just for you.  This is BIG news. It hasn’t been tested at a hearing yet, but your complaint will be considered. It’s confirmed. It’s so possible the tribunal doesn’t even consider it unique.  This absolutely needs to be done within the one year or it will not be accepted because…. And hold onto your hats, we are now moving into the shocking part of this decision.

Brace yourself.

The tribunal has declared with this decision, that parents who experience harm connected to their employment because of the discrimination their disabled child experienced at school, is not in the public interest to address this.

A human rights tribunal.

Has decided.

We aren’t worthy enough. Not in the public interest.

This is wild.

If the tribunal felt this was in the public interest and could advance the code, they would accept a late filing application. But they don’t. That is a huge problem.

This has really opened my eyes to reality.

We have a lot of work to do.

Parents of disabled children are not being considered a vulnerable population and the tribunal feels the public has no interest in our exclusion from the economy and essentially fully participating in life as adults or emotional harm that we experience.

For some resent research on the link between mother’s mental health and their struggling child, read Wilmot et al. (2023). “Mother’s perspectives on dyslexia-related school struggles and the inter-connected nature of  mother and child well-being.”

Now back to this decision.  

[8] In the Grade 5 school year from mid 2017 to mid 2018, the Parent alleges the Child was struggling in school. She says that everything reached a “crisis mode” in that year as he would come home and have “meltdowns” after school, crying, throwing things, and punching pillows. The Parent says that she was constantly being called by school staff to pick him up or resolve issues at school. She alleges that communicating with staff was challenging as they did not understand his disabilities and his teacher was inexperienced.

[11] On June 6, 2018, the Parent alleges she “resigned” from her secretary position to avoid an “emotional breakdown” related to issues with the Child at school.

[38] The Parent states she is clearly not the only parent who needs to go on leave when their children with disabilities are not properly able to access their education and are not being supported. She submits that “the system” needs to start recognizing the toll and impacts on parents’ employment when disabled children are not getting what they need. The Parent argues her case is unique regarding the issue of a parent bringing a complaint of consequential harm arising from conduct related to their child in school. The Parent argues the School District is incorrect in its assertion that the issue is settled such that she is barred from succeeding because she does not have the necessary services relationship with the Respondent. I do not agree with the Parent that the services and family status aspect of her complaint is unique. There is a decision on this issue that was noted by the parties: Independent School Authority v. Parent, 2022 BCSC 570.

(So, they admit that this situation and my alleged harm is not unique but that society doesn’t care. I even have a disability myself, but nope. Don’t care about the barriers around that either.)

[37] In determining whether acceptance of a late-filed complaint is in the public interest, the Tribunal also considers whether there is anything particularly unique, novel, or unusual about the complaint that has not been addressed in other complaints: Hau v. SFU Student Services and others, 2014 BHCRT 10 at para. 22; Bains v. Advanced Air Supply and others, 2012 BCHRT 74 at para. 22; Mathieu v. Victoria Shipyards and others, 2010 BCHRT 244 at para. 60. Where a complaint raises a novel issue on behalf of a vulnerable group, which advances the purposes of the Code, this factor may weigh in favour of finding a public interest in accepting the complaint: Mzite at paras. 65-66. The Tribunal has considered gaps in its jurisprudence, on the one hand, and the existence of good precedents, on the other hand, in determining whether to permit a complaint to proceed: Mzite at para. 67.

[39] In the end, I do not find this Complaint attracts the public interest in allowing it to proceed late filed. The Complaint was filed over four years late and the Parent has not provided any reasons for the late filing that attract the public interest in letting in proceed late. Further, the complaint is not sufficiently unique or novel to attract the public interest. Having not found it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint, I need not address the issue of whether substantial prejudice would result.

(Let’s all just take a breath)

Parents aren’t enough of a vulnerable group and my case isn’t novel because of ONE case that hasn’t even made it to a hearing to judge its merits yet?

BOLD statement.

The tribunal thought this person’s case was of public interest.

Schulz v. Camosun College, 2023 BCHRT 142

[42] Millie Schulz argues their case is unique as it involves a complainant with ASD. While the Tribunal has addressed mental health discrimination in the provision of services, it has not addressed many of the issues impacting individuals with ASD, and their need for accommodation, especially in a school or employment setting. They cite one Tribunal case dealing with autism from 2011, which points out that the nature of adult autism and how it manifests itself in the workplace is poorly understood, and individuals with this disability are subject to stigma and stereotyping: Noriega v. B. C. (Min. of Children and Family Development), 2011 BCHRT 199 at para 28.

What is the difference, may I ask?

Does the Human Rights Commissioner stand with the decision by the Human Rights Tribunal and declare that unemployment and emotional harm of parents of disabled children are of no public interest?

That we aren’t a vulnerable population?

Show me where there is accessible childcare?

Where?

Look at the School Exclusion Tracker by BC Ed Access.

Our own inclusion in the economy and having careers is hanging on by a thread. A very fragile thread.

Look at the amount of money the School Protection program is spending on legal fees and settlements connected to human rights.  

Along with my 30-page argument, I also submitted 60 stories of exclusion collected by Jenn Scharf, an example of an exclusion policy from another district.

I’d love to organize a protest and show the government and the public just the number of people who are affected however, because the discrimination is so thick with lack of daycare, school exclusion and accessibility, people struggle even get themselves to a location to protest.

What is your protest idea? We all pick a day and flood them with our stories?

We need to build an army of stories.

We need to get loud.

We need to be heard.

So, parents, feel free to cite this case when needed to state that this situation is not unique or novel.

Let us remember the good stuff.

So, the moral of the story is you can file your own complaint along with your child’s discrimination complaint. One complaint for them. One complaint for you. You’ll need to file an application to join them together later in the process if they both get accepted.

Shockingly, the tribunal doesn’t see us as a vulnerable population worthy of public interest.

That is going to need to change and the only way to do that is for us to file our own complaints when we file on behalf of our children. They need to read our stories. 

One complaint for your child. One complaint for you.

No matter what happens, a tribunal member will read it.

Every complaint matters. You matter. Your child’s story matters. Your story matters.

I have a question for any human rights lawyer reading this blog. Does a parent necessarily need to file a complaint on behalf of their child, or can they just file a complaint on behalf of themselves under family status if they wanted to?

With so many children being on reduced school hours, even if the tribunal wouldn’t consider those decisions discriminatory, can parents still file a complaint under family status because those reduced hours negatively impacts them?

*******

Some recent noteworthy decisions in education from the Human Rights Tribunal.

Student (by Parent) v. School District, 2023 BCHRT 237 

The Parent obo the Child v. School District, 2024 BCHRT 91

X by Y v. Board of Education of School District No. Z, 2024 BCHRT 72

Ableism as defined on the BC Human Rights Commissioners Office website. https://bchumanrights.ca/glossary/ableism/

“An ideology and system of oppression in society that holds that some bodies are more valuable than others, which limits the potential of people with disabilities. People with disabilities are assumed to be less worthy of respect and consideration, less able to contribute and take part and of less value than other people. Ableism can be conscious or unconscious and is embedded in institutions, systems and the broader culture of a society.”