The Student (by the parent) v. The School District, 2025 BCHRT 17
Date Issued: January 24, 2025
File: CS-008069
Indexed as: The Student (by the parent) v. The School District, 2025 BCHRT 17
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:
The Student (by the Parent)
COMPLAINANT
AND:
The School District
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO LIMIT PUBLICATION
Rules 5(6) and (7)
Tribunal Member: Beverly Froese
On their own behalf: The Parent
Counsel for the School District: Ilan B. Burkes and Ellen Ferguson
I INTRODUCTION
[1] In April 2022, the Parent made a complaint against the School District on the Student’s behalf. The complaint alleges that the School District discriminated against the Student regarding its services based on the Student’s mental disability. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the School District failed to accommodate the Student by not providing him with an Education Assistant in one of his classes.
[2] The School District denies discriminating against the Student. It says the Student was provided with accommodations that allowed him to meaningfully engage in his education and successfully complete the class.
[3] The Parent applies for an order limiting publication of her name and the Student’s name. The School District does not oppose anonymizing the names of the Parent and Student, but requests that its name also be anonymized.
[4] For the reasons that follow, the application is granted. I also find that in the circumstances, the School District’s name should also be anonymized.
[5] To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact on the merits of the complaint.
II DECISION
[6] Complaints at the Tribunal are presumptively public: Mother A obo Child B v. School District C , 2015 BCHRT 64 at para. 7. This openness serves four main goals: maintaining an effective evidentiary process, ensuring that Tribunal members act fairly, promoting public confidence in the Tribunal, and educating the public about the Tribunal’s process and development of the law : Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General) , [1989] 2 SCR 1326 at para. 61; JY v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 106 at para. 25. These goals align with the purposes of the Code , which include fostering a more equitable society and identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality: Code , s. 3. The main way that the Tribunal furthers these purposes is through its public decisions: A. v. Famous Players Inc. , 2005 BCHRT 432 at para. 14.
[7] The Tribunal has discretion to limit publication of identifying information where a person can show their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure [ Rules ], Rule 5(6); Stein v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2020 BCSC 70 at para. 64(a). The Tribunal may consider factors like the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations, private detail in the complaint, harm to reputation, or any other potential harm: JY at para. 30. It may also consider whether the proposed limitation relates to only a “sliver” of information that minimally impairs the openness of the proceeding: CS v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2019 BCCA 406 at para. 37.
[8] Rule 5(7) presumes that a minor’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in accessing the Tribunal’s proceedings. As such, it is appropriate to limit publication of information that could identify the Student in connection with this complaint.
[9] As the parties agree that the names of the Parent, the Student, and non-party witnesses should be anonymized, the only issue I need to decide is if the School District’s name should also be anonymized.
[10] In her application and reply, the Parent explains why she wants the School District’s name to be made public. Specifically, she says that disclosing the School District’s name will motivate it and other school districts to resolve issues with parents of children with disabilities rather than litigating them. She also says that disclosing the School District’s name would deter school districts and others from engaging in similar discriminatory behaviour.
[11] The Parent also says there is no risk that disclosing the School District’s name will identify the Student because there are over 25,000 students attending its schools and they do not live in a small town.
[12] In support of her application, the Parent relies on Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another , 2024 BCHRT 150, where the Tribunal considered the respondent’s application to limit publication in the context of an application to dismiss the complaint. In that case, the Tribunal anonymized the names of the child and the school’s educators and staff, but not the names of the mother and the school. The mother in that case said that “’perfect anonymity’ for Child K is neither necessary nor possible” given that members of the child and mother’s community already knew about the complaint: at para. 14. The mother’s concern was protecting Child K’s identity from the general public and only until Child K is old enough to decide if she wants to make her identity known to the general public.
[13] The School District argues that making its name and the names of the particular school and non-party witnesses public could disclose the Student’s identity. The School District says that because of the Parent’s public online presence, disclosing its name would enable the public to “draw a clear line” between her, this complaint, and a separate complaint she made on her daughter’s behalf. The School District says that although the Parent does not explicitly say in her online posts that she is referring to her children’s complaints, “her posts about the decisions and applications relating to her children are sufficient for the public to draw the obvious connection”. In support of its application, the School District submitted several of the Parent’s online publications to show the extent of her internet presence.
[14] In support of its position, the School District cites previous Tribunal decisions regarding applications to limit publication that relate to this complaint and the complaint the Parent made on her daughter’s behalf. I find these cases to be of limited assistance given the Tribunal granted the orders to limit publication either on consent or on its own motion without submissions from the parties.
[15] In reply, the Parent says that drawing a connection between her and the Student from her online presence is “quite the stretch”. She says she has never linked herself with her children’s complaints online and she is not connected to her children’s social media accounts.
[16] For two reasons I find this situation distinguishable from that in Child K . First, the basis of the application was that the respondent school did not want its name disclosed to protect the identity of educators and staff who were involved in the proceeding. The Tribunal denied the application because in that particular circumstance, the public interest in identifying a publicly funded institution that serves the public was not outweighed by the possibility that some educators and staff might be identified: at paras. 5 and 29.
[17] Second, Mrs. Ehmke made submissions to support her position that “’perfect anonymity’ for Child K is neither necessary nor possible”: at para. 14. Mrs. Ehmke explained to the Tribunal her objectives in providing Child K with anonymity “until she is old enough to make her own decisions about the extent to which she wants certain details about her life to be public”: at para. 16. Mrs. Ehmke also explained “the extent to which Child K’s privacy interests are engaged and must be protected”: at para. 17. In this case, the Parent’s submissions focus primarily on her reasons for wanting the School District’s name made public.
[18] I now turn to the relevant factors.
[19] This complaint is at the early stages of the Tribunal’s process. The allegations against the School District have not been proven. The complaint contains personal information about the Student’s mental disabilities and experiences at school. The most important factor is the harm to the Student that could result if his identity is made known.
[20] I am not persuaded by the materials the School District submitted that it would be as easy to identify the Student from the Parent’s online presence as the School District suggests. I also recognize that the number of schools in the School District and the number of students with disabilities who attend those schools makes it less likely that disclosing the name of the School District would identify the Student. However, in my view, it is appropriate at this stage to reduce the risk of harm to the Student to the greatest extent possible by limiting publication of the School District’s name.
[21] I understand the Parent’s reasons for wanting to name the School District. My order to limit publication is limited to pre-hearing decisions. If this complaint proceeds to a hearing, my order is not binding on the presiding Tribunal Member.
III CONCLUSION AND ORDER
[22] For the reasons set out above, the Parent’s application to limit publication is granted. The School District’s request is also granted. I make the following order:
a. The names of the Parent, the Student, the School District, and non-party witnesses will be anonymized in all pre-hearing decisions;
b. The case name will be changed to “The Student (by the Parent) v. The School District”;
c. The Tribunal will not publish or make available to the public any information that could identify the Student; and
d. If this complaint goes to a hearing, this order is not binding on the presiding Tribunal Member.
Beverly Froese
Tribunal Member