← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Inquiry means doing

If they say: We’re aware that she’s been having a hard time.

Say: I appreciate your awareness—now let’s move toward meaningful inquiry. The duty includes investigating barriers, not just noticing distress.

Legal grounding: BCHRT 237 confirms that once harm is known, schools must actively investigate. Observation alone does not fulfil legal duty.

This entry draws from Kim Block’s Part 3: Duty to Accommodate – Meaningful Inquiry, which affirms that schools have a legal obligation to act when disability-related harm is visible or reported. Too often, institutions recognise signs of distress without taking the next step: asking why it’s happening, what needs are being unmet, and how those barriers can be removed. Noticing suffering is not the same as responding to it. And delayed action, even if well-meaning, compounds harm.

Key takeaways

Awareness activates obligation
Once a school is aware—or should reasonably be aware—of disability-related impact, it must begin a process of inquiry. That means asking questions, documenting barriers, and initiating support. Recognition without action does not meet the legal threshold.
Inquiry requires proactivity, not passivity
The Human Rights Code does not accept institutional inaction as neutrality. Schools are responsible for following up on distress signals, even if parents haven’t used legal terms like “accommodation” or “discrimination.” Passive observation is insufficient.
Delay is a form of denial
Failing to investigate and address harm in a timely way can lead to discrimination by omission. When concern is acknowledged but no steps are taken, families are left carrying the consequences—and children remain unsupported.