Parent W and others v. Ministry of Education (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 350
Date Issued: December 20, 2024
File: CS-000041
Indexed as: Parent W and others v. Ministry of Education (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 350
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Parent W and Child W (by Parent W) and All parents and their children who participate in a parent-directed educational program as defined by the School Act (by Parent W)
COMPLAINANTS
AND:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by
the Ministry of Education
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER AND LIMIT PUBLICATION
Rules 5 and 36
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
For the Complainant: Parent W
Counsel for the Respondent: No submissions required
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Parent W filed four complaints alleging that the Ministry of Education discriminated against their and their child (Child W) as well as two classes of parents and children by failing to provide equal funding for students and parents who participate in parent-directed educational programs [together, Complainants ]. On October 29, 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint: Parent W and others v. Ministry of Education , 2024 BCHRT 306 [ Decision ]. It found that the Complainants had no reasonable prospect of proving that the funding at issue was a service customarily provided by the Ministry.
[2] The Complainants apply for reconsideration of the Decision. They argue that the Decision is unfair because it is based on the Ministry’s submissions, which misrepresent its services and the impact of relevant legislation. The Complainants also apply for an order to limit publication of information which could identify Child W. They seek to have this order apply to the Decision retroactively.
[3] I have not found it necessary to seek submissions on the reconsideration application. For the reasons set out below, the application is denied. The Ministry takes no position on the application to limit publication. It is granted.
II APPLICATION TO LIMIT PUBLICATION
[4] Parent W has asked that the Tribunal limit publication of Child W’s name and information that could identify Child W in this complaint, including Parent W’s name. The Ministry takes no position on the request.
[5] I exercise my discretion to grant this request. The Tribunal’s Rules presume that a minor’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in accessing the Tribunal’s proceedings: Rule 5(7): Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure , Rule 5(5). There is no dispute that Child W is a minor and that their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in accessing the Tribunal’s proceeding.
[6] I order that the Tribunal not publish the names of Parent W or Child W in connection with this complaint. This order will be applied retroactively to the Decision, which will be reissued with these names removed.
[7] In making this order, I advise Parent W that the Decision was previously posted on the Tribunal’s website, without the benefit of the anonymization order. The Decision was taken down while I considered the request to limit publication. However, it is possible that members of the public have seen a non-anonymized version of the Decision.
III APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER
[8] The power to reconsider a decision, once made, is necessarily very narrow. Among other things, this ensures that the resources of the Tribunal and the parties are not endlessly taken up in re-arguing the same issues, which would be neither efficient nor fair: Grant v. City of Vancouver and others (No. 4) , 2007 BCHRT 206 at para. 10. As the Supreme Court of Canada has explained:
Litigants hope to have their legal issues resolved as equitably and expeditiously as possible by an authoritative adjudicator. Subject only to rights of review or appeal, they expect, in the interests of fairness, to be able to rely on the outcome as final and binding …
British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola , 2011 SCC 52 at para. 1.
[9] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to reconsider its own decisions is limited to cases where reconsideration is in the interests of fairness and justice: Zutter v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), 1995 CanLII 1234 (BCCA); Fraser Health Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2014 BCCA 499 at para. 160, upheld on this point in 2016 SCC 25; Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, 1989 CanLII 41 (SCC).
[10] Reconsideration is not an opportunity for parties to “enter new facts that with reasonable diligence were available in the first instance, to make arguments that could have been made in the first instance but were not, or to reargue matters that were argued in the first instance in an attempt to achieve a different result”: Ramadan v. Kwantlen Polytechnic University and another (No. 2), 2018 BCHRT 56 at para. 13. Here, the burden is on the Complainants to show that reconsideration is in the interests of fairness and justice: Grant at para. 10; Rule 36(1).
[11] All of the Complainants’ application repeats arguments that they made or could have made in the original submission process. This includes arguments that:
a. The legislation creates a mechanism for funding students and parents in parent-directed education programs;
b. Parent W has received funding from an independent school for homeschooling expenses, and in connection with online schooling; and
c. The Ministry’s arguments denigrate parent educators, by referring to homeschooling as an “opt out” and erasing the contributions of parents.
[12] All these issues relate to arguments that could have been, and/or were, made in the original submission process. The Complainants had a full opportunity to make these arguments and have them considered by the Tribunal. They have not pointed to any unfairness in the Tribunal’s process. Reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the issue in hopes of a different result. Granting this application would undermine the finality of the Tribunal’s process. The appropriate forum for the Complainants’ arguments is to the court on judicial review.
IV CONCLUSION
[13] The application for the Tribunal to limit publication of the names of Parent W and Child W in connection with this complaint is granted and applied retroactively to the Decision.
[14] The application for reconsideration of the Decision is denied.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair