← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Exhaustion isn’t oppositional

If they say: He just refuses to do the work when asked.

Say: Sometimes what looks like refusal is actually collapse—especially in children who feel unseen or exhausted. Co-regulation, predictability, and a meaningful relationship are better starting points than compliance.

Legal grounding: The Human Rights Code protects students from being disciplined for disability-related behaviours when reasonable accommodation could mitigate them.

When a child shuts down, withdraws, or lashes out after long periods of strain, that isn’t opposition—it’s the body calling time on distress it can no longer carry. Autistic, ADHD, and disabled children often survive school days by masking or enduring without the right supports, and what appears as refusal may be the final protective act of a nervous system past its limit. This is harm, not defiance. And the law recognises that systems must adjust to meet these needs before interpreting behaviour as intentional misconduct.

Key takeaways

Behaviour rooted in distress is a disability-related impact
When a child becomes dysregulated or unresponsive due to unmet needs, the school is responsible for exploring and accommodating those needs—rather than framing the child as oppositional.
Prolonged exposure to inaccessible environments can be disabling
The Human Rights Code protects children from environments that produce psychological or emotional harm. Exhaustion that stems from lack of accommodation is legally relevant.
Accommodation must precede discipline
Schools are obligated to identify and remove barriers before interpreting behaviour as misconduct. Reaction without investigation violates the duty to inquire and can result in discriminatory treatment.