← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

The three-part test

If they say: We don’t think this qualifies as discrimination.

Say: I’m applying the Moore test: protected characteristic, harm, and a link between them. That establishes discrimination unless the school can justify it.

Legal grounding: Moore v. BC (Education) defines the 3-part test; once met, the school must prove its actions were legally justified.

This entry is grounded in Kim Block’s Part 2(A): Duty to Accommodate – Discrimination Test, which offers a clear explanation of the legal threshold for establishing discrimination. The Human Rights Tribunal uses a simple but powerful three-part test—known as the Moore test—to assess whether a student has experienced discriminatory treatment in school. This framework centres on impact, not intention, and places the burden on institutions to justify their decisions when harm is shown.

Key takeaways

There are three questions that define discrimination
(1) Does the student have a protected characteristic, such as a disability?
(2) Have they experienced adverse impact in education?
(3) Was the harm connected to the protected characteristic?
Once harm is shown, the burden shifts
If the three-part test is satisfied, the school must prove that its actions were justified, using the “bona fide and reasonable justification” standard. The onus moves off the parent.
This is a legal test—not a suggestion
These criteria are drawn from Moore v. British Columbia (Education), a Supreme Court of Canada case, and are used in every BC Human Rights Tribunal complaint. Schools must meet this standard when challenged.