← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Withdrawn support is denial

If they say: He had EA support last year, but this year the teacher feels he’s doing fine without it.

Say: Removing accommodations because a child is succeeding under them undermines the entire purpose of support. The duty to accommodate includes maintaining what works.

Legal grounding: The law protects accommodations already in place; removing them without process violates established human rights case law (e.g. Moore v. British Columbia).

Sometimes, when a child starts doing well under an accommodation, school staff assume the support is no longer necessary. But progress under support doesn’t mean the need has disappeared—it means the support is working. Removing it can undo that progress and reintroduce the very barriers the accommodation was designed to remove. The Human Rights Code protects children from this kind of regression.

Key takeaways

Effective accommodations must be maintained
When an accommodation helps a student succeed, it confirms the need—not erases it. Withdrawing support because a child is stable contradicts the entire purpose of equity measures.
Progress under support is not a reason to remove it
Sustained improvement is often the direct result of adequate scaffolding. Removing that scaffolding because of success risks collapse, and violates the student’s right to continued access.
The law protects what’s already in place
Tribunal decisions have affirmed that removing an existing accommodation without process or justification can constitute discrimination. Schools must follow due diligence before altering support plans.