← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Vague refusal is refusal

If they say: “We’re not sure it’s appropriate,” “This isn’t our usual process,” or “Let’s give it some time”

Say: If support is declined, I need that decision clearly documented—along with any planned alternatives. Vague responses don’t pause legal duties.

Legal grounding: The duty to accommodate requires clear, timely action. Avoidance or delay without justification may constitute discrimination (Moore, BCHRT 237).

Some schools respond to accommodation requests with delay, uncertainty, or procedural ambiguity. Kim Block’s Part 2(B): Reasonable Justification walks through what counts as a legally valid reason to deny accommodations—and what doesn’t. Many forms of hesitation are simply non-compliance.

Key takeaways

Unclear discomfort is not a defence
Schools must meet the justification test if they intend to deny or delay accommodations. That means proving the goal is rational, the denial is made in good faith, and—critically—there’s no other way to meet the goal without causing undue hardship.
Waiting “to see how things go” is a risk, not a plan
Delay causes harm, especially when a student is already in distress. The duty to accommodate is triggered by impact and must be met with timely, responsive action. Schools cannot lawfully stall support while waiting for clearer crisis.
Discomfort with change does not meet the legal bar
If a school says a request “isn’t how we usually do things,” that is not, by itself, a justification under human rights law. They must prove why a change would be impossible—not simply unfamiliar or inconvenient.