Child (by the Parent) v. School District, 2025 BCHRT 89
Date Issued: April 9, 2025
File(s): CS-006707
Indexed as: Child (by the Parent) v. School District, 2025 BCHRT 89
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:
Child (by the Parent)
COMPLAINANT
AND:
School District
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
SECTION 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On his own behalf: Parent
Counsel for the School District: Annie Olson
I. BACKGROUND
[1] Below I set out the Child’s allegations in some detail as I will later determine whether they are arguable contraventions of the Code capable of forming a continuing contravention of the Code .
[2] At the time the Complaint was filed in April 2022, the Child was 15 years old and attending high school in the School District. Prior to that he attended middle and primary schools in the same School District.
[3] The Child identifies as Black and of African race, ancestry and place of origin. The Child has a mild Autism Spectrum Disorder [ ASD ], which the Parent describes as largely diagnosed from his late speech and asymptomatic.
[4] Before mid 2018, the Child alleges two white male classmates, C and S, repeatedly made racial slurs and called him autistic. The Child alleges the School District did nothing of substance to stop the racial slurs and negatively labelling of him as autistic.
[5] On June 18, 2018, the Child alleges he was playing basketball with C and S, and a third white female child. After winning multiple times against the others, the Child alleges that they assaulted him, which resulted in him permanently injuring one of his fingers. The Child alleges that School District employees inappropriately labelled him as the wrongdoer in this incident based on their negative stereotyping of Black people. The Child alleges he was then inappropriately placed outside the classroom for the remainder of the term because the school principal was uncomfortable with him being inside where he could get violent. The Child alleges the School District was vehemently protective of the white children and their parents. He further alleges the School District failed to take any interest in his medical ordeal following the incident. Overall, the Child alleges the School District consciously and unconsciously collaborated and enabled the racial discrimination alleged. First, they did this by adamantly denying there was any wrongdoing on the part of C and S in the basketball injury, and second by falsely reporting that these boys were asked to stay in the office during recess for the rest of the week [the June 2018 incident ].
[6] On February 10, 2019, the Child alleges C and S came into his neighbourhood to harm him. When the Child ran home he alleges that the Parent managed to get the boys to back off. The Child alleges that he being hunted by the white boys is related to the School District’s previous failure to punish them. The April 19, 2019, email from the School District elementary school principal to the Parent responded to his concerns about snow day harassment. It states the School District had informed the parents of the white children about these incidents without further action and suggested that the Parent contact local police if it was felt that the Child was being threatened again outside of school hours [the February 2019 incident ].
[7] On November 14, 2019, the Child alleges one of the boys from the June 2018 incident, C, continued to bully him in a new middle school setting. He alleges C said: “good we broke your knuckle, now you couldn’t play well – You are a trash”. The Child alleges the principal at the new school did nothing in response to C’s actions, even though the Parent informed the principal about C’s history of bullying and discriminating against the Child [the November 2019 incident ].
[8] The Child alleges that during 2020, because of the pandemic lockdown, he got some relief by not having to interact with C.
[9] On March 11, 2021, the Child alleges C showed up at his home wanting a fight.
[10] On April 6, 2021, the Child alleges the Parent texted the school principal with concerns about C wanting to fight him, which were ignored [the Spring 2021 incident ].
[11] In September and October 2021, the Child alleges another white boy, W, in the new high school setting, witnessed C teasing and chasing him. The Child alleges that over a lengthy period C repeatedly used racial slurs and made judgments about his hair. The Child alleges that this negatively affected his self-esteem. He alleges that W similarly wanted power over him.
[12] On October 14, 2021, the Child alleges W approached him and called him a racialized slur and commented about his thick black hair. The Child alleges W then tried to start a fight with him and when he declined W slashed his bicycle tire to further provoke him. Despite the Child reporting this incident to the school vice principal, the School District did not take any disciplinary action against W. The Child alleges the School District negotiated a $50 settlement from W’s parents for the damage to his bicycle. However, the Parent says that this monetary remedy was not accepted because it was not accompanied by any disciplinary measures. The Child alleges feeling degraded by W’s conduct and mocked by the only outcome offered by the School District was to negotiate the repair of his bike [the October 14, 2021, incident ].
[13] On October 20, 2021, the Child alleges three higher grade white boys followed him into the bathroom and one of the boys intentionally slammed a bathroom stall door into his face. The Child alleges this incident resulted in him chipping his two front teeth. He alleges the School District principal and vice principal were unmoved by the incident and did not want to report it to the police. The Child alleges the vice principal kept blaming him for screaming and shouting and rolling around on the floor as an attempt to magnify his autism behaviour to justify the other boys’ wrongdoing. Once again, the Child alleges the School District protected the white assailants from receiving any blame for the incident. This allegedly included the School District saying that they did not know which boy had caused the harm to the Child. The Child alleges this incident was a good example of the School District’s staff demonstrating their inclination to favour white children in altercations involving him [the October 20, 2021, incident ].
II. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[14] The time limit set out in s. 22 of the Code is a substantive provision which is intended to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies diligently: Chartier v. School District No. 62 , 2003 BCHRT 39.
[15] The Complaint was filed on April 15, 2022. To comply with the one-year time limit under s. 22(1) of the Code , the alleged act of discrimination had to occur on or after April 15, 2021.
[16] A complaint is filed in time if the last allegation of discrimination happened within one year, and older allegations are part of a “continuing contravention”: Code , s. 22(2); School District v. Parent obo the Child , 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 68. A continuing contravention is “a succession or repetition of separate acts of discrimination of the same character” that could be considered separate contraventions of the Code , and “not merely one act of discrimination which may have continuing effects or consequences”: Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57 at para. 23; School District at para. 50.
[17] The School District argues there are no timely allegations of discrimination in this case as the Child has not made out any timely arguable contraventions of the Code . The School District states that in both the October 2021 incidents allegations, the Child’s ancestry, race, colour and place of origin are not connected to the harms alleged just because he is Black, and the other children involved were white. Here, the School District argues that the only comments made about race came from the Parent and discrimination cannot be presumed because those involved in the altercations were of different ethnicities.
[18] After reviewing the Complaint evidence, I am satisfied that the two timely allegations for October 14 and 20, 2021 incidents contain allegations of discrimination: Moore v. British Columbia (Education) [ Moore ], 2012 SCC 61 at para 33. The Child has shown that, if proven, he can establish that he is Black and has a mental disability, experienced an adverse impact with respect to the services provided by the School District; and that his ancestry, race, colour, place of origin and mental disability were factors in the alleged adverse impacts during this timeframe.
[19] I disagree with the School District that these incidents do not involve overt allegations of racial and mental disability discrimination. The Child’s allegations include a history of racial and mental disability slurs from white male students that began in elementary school, continued through middle school and carried on into high school. He alleges School District employees knew about these slurs and accompanying bullying behaviour and did little to stop it. Moreover, the Child alleges the School District’s behaviour in siding with the white male children in both of the October 2021 incidents demonstrated a conscious or unconscious bias towards him as a Black student with a mental disability. While emphasizing these allegations are currently unproven, I find the connection between the Child’s race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and mental disability is sufficient in this case to reach the low threshold of an arguable contravention of the Code .
[20] I have next considered whether the Child has alleged further arguable contraventions of the Code for the period prior to one year timeframe for filing.
[21] From my review of the Complaint evidence, the earliest allegation that is an arguable contravention of the Code is the June 2018 incident. Here, the School District is alleged to have failed to fairly assess and appropriately punish those involved for reasons related to the Child’s race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and mental disability. Once again, I disagree with the School District that the Child’s allegations that his personal characteristics lack any connection to the harms described in the June 2018 incident. First, the allegations include a history of slurs from the white children involved that was known to the School District. Second, the School District is alleged to have unfairly treated the Child while protecting the white children involved. In my view, the allegations go well beyond Child being bullied because he was winning at basketball.
[22] I have next considered whether the February 2019 incident contains any arguable contravention of the Code . With the benefit of the Child’s further evidence concerning the Parent complaining to the School District about harassment by C and S outside of school hours, I find this incident contains allegations capable of forming an arguable contravention because the necessary connection exists between the Child’s personal characteristics and the harms alleged. Once again, the Child alleges the School District responded inappropriately to him being hunted down by C and S in his neighbourhood by merely informing their parents as to what had happened and doing nothing more for reasons related to his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and mental disability.
[23] For similar reasons, I have concluded the November 2019 incident contains arguable contravention of the Code . Here, the Child again alleges that the School District failed to respond appropriately after he reported continued bullying with elements of racial and mental disability slurs in the middle school. I disagree with the School District that a finding of an arguable contravention of the Code in this case turns on the Child’s use of the term “harassment” to describe what was happening at school.
[24] Finally, I have considered whether the Child’s allegation that C showed up at his house again wanting to fight on March 11, 2021, and the School District’s alleged unwillingness to act when the Parent texted it on April 6, 2021, to request it respond to this incident. I am satisfied that the School District’s alleged lack of response to C’s actions is an arguable contravention of the Code . Here, the Child alleges that the School District failed to respond after it was reported that C continued to threaten him in the neighbourhood for reasons related to his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and mental disability. In my view, the Spring 2021 incident is an arguable contravention where the Child alleges the School District knew C uttered racist and mental disability slurs and it failed to act because of the Child’s race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and mental disability.
[25] Having found multiple arguable contraventions of the Code , that are both timely and out of time, it is necessary to next consider whether the late-filed allegations form part of a continuing contravention.
[26] I first considered whether the allegations are of a similar character for the purposes of determining the existence of a continuing contravention of the Code . The School District argues the timely allegations are dissimilar because the timely allegations involve different children at different schools. I disagree with the School District. From my review of the allegations in their entirety, I agree with the Child that they involve the School District’s failure to properly respond in series of altercations where white male students harmed the Child for reasons related to his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and mental disability. At the same time, the allegations are of a similar character because the Child alleges the School District’s repeated responses to all these incidents were unfair to him for reasons related to the personal characteristics identified. In my view, the similar character of these allegations is not affected in any material way because they occurred at different schools and with different white male children.
[27] I have next considered the existence of gaps between allegations. I have determined that there are no significant gaps for the purposes of s. 22(2) of the Code in this case. I disagree with the School District’s approach to this question by looking at the entire timespan for the allegations in question. In my view, it is more appropriate to look at the length of time between allegations to determine whether they occurred in succession. Here, there were gaps of half of year to about nine months between most of the allegations and these are explained by the somewhat randomness of serious incidents happening when the white male students engaged the Child. The only possibly significant gap in my view, occurred between the November 2019 incident and the Spring 2021 incident. However, this gap is easily explained by the fact that during most of 2020 schools were closed due to pandemic restrictions and the Child was not in physical proximity to the students in question.
[28] Overall, I am satisfied the Child’s allegations from the June 2018 incident to the Spring 2021 incident allegations are of a similar nature in succession to the timely October 2021 incidents allegations. As such, the Complaint is a timely continuing contravention of the Code and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to determine whether it is in the public interest to allow any late filed allegations to proceed.
V . CONCLUSION
[29] For these reasons, the complaint is accepted for filing as a continuing contravention of the Code .
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member