← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

The discrimination test is your sword

If they say: “Our policy says…”
“We’ll have to ask the district…”
“We’re working within resource constraints…”
“This is what we usually offer…”

Say: My child doesn’t need a label to be protected. If their disability caused them harm, that’s discrimination—and the Code says so.

Legal grounding: The test is simple: disability + harm + connection = discrimination. No need for intent. Even perceived disability qualifies. The Human Rights Code applies whether or not the school meant harm.

Schools often shift the conversation to budget, behaviour, or staffing—but the Human Rights Code cuts through those diversions. The discrimination test centres the harm, not the excuse.

Key takeaways

You don’t need a designation to claim your rights
If harm occurred due to a disability—or a perceived one—your child is protected under the Code.
Intent is irrelevant under law
Even if staff meant well, if the impact was discriminatory, the law still applies.
Use the test as your guide
Disability + Harm + Link = Discrimination. Keep documenting, naming the impact, and making the connection clear.

Learn more
Part 6: Duty to Accommodate – Pulling it all together
by Kim Block, Speaking Up BC