After reading through a couple of of the recent BC Human Rights Tribunal findings, here are some thoughts:
Ongoing delays erode trust
Several rulings show how procedural deadlines and scheduling gaps thwart families seeking essential supports. In one decision the Tribunal dismissed parents’ allegations about inadequate consultation and discontinued specialist services because the events in 2017 and 2018 fell outside the one‑year filing window for a 2019 individual education plan (IEP) claim. In another, parents requested six hours a week of home instruction during the 2019–20 school year but were denied without clear recourse, leaving their child chronically absent while the Board’s processes dragged on.
Procedural hurdles bar timely relief
The Human Rights Code’s one‑year time limit under section 22 remains a formidable barrier.
“[47] Under s. 22(1) of the Code , a complaint must be filed within one year of the alleged contravention. Allegations filed outside this time limit are late and can be dismissed under s. 27(1)(g), unless they form part of an alleged “continuing contravention” with a timely allegation: Code , s. 22(2). The burden is on the Child to establish that their complaint alleges a timely continuing contravention: Dove v. GVRD and others (No. 3) , 2006 BCHRT 374 at para. 38 [ Dove No. 3 ].”
Child (by Parents) v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2025 BCHRT 85
Although the Human Rights Tribunal accepted a continuing contravention spanning bullying and neglect from 2018 through 2021, some complaints about IEP non‑compliance or disability‑related discipline were struck out as untimely unless parents demonstrated an unbroken chain of incidents—a demanding test for families already managing crises.
Families forced into advocacy roles
- 2025 BCHRT 85 – Child (by Parents) v. Surrey SD 36: The parents repeatedly supplied psycho‑educational and medical reports, pressed for e‑books and hygiene accommodations, and ultimately funded private tutoring because the District either misplaced, ignored, or delayed acting on the recommendations. Only their persistence kept the IEP issue alive; without it, the Tribunal noted, the claim would likely have been dismissed.
- 2025 BCHRT 62 – P (by KD) v. SD 61 (Greater Victoria): After the District rejected at‑home instruction and one‑to‑one EA support, the parents pursued Tribunal relief. The member observed: “There is no evidence before me that providing P with at‑home instruction would have caused undue hardship to the School District.”
- 2025 BCHRT 89 – Child (by the Parent) v. School District: Over four school years the parent documented racial and disability‑related bullying, logged incidents, and challenged multiple principals’ responses. The Tribunal accepted the entire complaint as a continuing contravention precisely because the parent maintained a chronological record and pressed the matter despite repeated dismissals.
Together these rulings illustrate a common pattern: Districts often default to delay or denial, so parents must advocate tirelessly and often navigate legal processes to obtain what should be routine, timely accommodations for autistic students, students with ADHD, and other disabled learners.
Districts are required to accommodate
One thing that seems to get overlooked by Districts is their duty to accommodate.
“There is no evidence before me that providing P with at-home instruction would have caused undue hardship to the School District.”
P (by KD) v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) and another, 2025 BCHRT 62
This passage crystallises an important legal principle: once a parent (or student) shows that an accommodation is needed, the burden shifts to the District to demonstrate that meeting that need would impose undue hardship. In BCHRT 62 the Tribunal noted—without equivocation—that the Board offered no proof of hardship when it refused six hours a week of at‑home instruction. The ruling therefore frames the parents’ advocacy not as a plea for favours but as a request the law already presumes to be reasonable unless the District can prove otherwise.
A call for systemic reform
These decisions expose a system that privileges procedural form over prompt, meaningful support. Schools and Districts must shift from defensive postures to proactive accommodation—prioritising timely IEP meetings, transparent timelines, and genuine partnership with families. Without that shift, the promise of inclusive education will remain out of reach for those who need it most.
See:
