← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Intent is not required

If they say: But we didn’t mean to cause harm.

Say: I understand there was no intent to harm—but under the Human Rights Code, what matters is impact. Unintentional harm from policies or inaction still counts.

Legal grounding: Section 2 affirms that discrimination is based on impact, not intent. Tribunal decisions focus on effect.

This entry draws from Kim Block’s Part 2(A): Duty to Accommodate – Discrimination Test, which underscores a foundational truth in human rights law: a person or institution can discriminate even when they don’t intend to. What matters is not their motivation or attitude, but the consequences of their actions. Discrimination is defined by its impact—and schools are responsible for outcomes, not just intentions.

Key takeaways

Discrimination is based on outcome, not motive
A school can act with goodwill and still create exclusion. When harm occurs, the legal focus is on the adverse effect—not whether the staff meant to cause it.
Good faith does not erase impact
Even if school personnel are following norms or routines, if those routines disadvantage disabled students, the school remains responsible under the Human Rights Code.
Harmful patterns can be systemic, not personal
Many children are excluded by policies, delays, or unexamined practices—not individual malice. That still qualifies as discrimination if it produces unequal access or outcomes.