Know Your Rights: What Ontario Parents Need to Understand About Human Rights and Education
- msrovet
- Jul 30
- 4 min read
Most Ontario parents don’t realize it, but your child has legal rights in education — and those rights apply whether they attend a public school, private school, or independent program.
Far too often, schools claim they "can't" accommodate a student’s needs. But many of these claims don’t hold up when examined through the lens of the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC).
This post will help you understand:
What your child is entitled to
What isn't a valid excuse
What constitutes a breach of the Code
What steps to take if your child's rights are violated
What Does the Human Rights Code Say?
The OHRC requires that students with disabilities be accommodated to the point of undue hardship.
This means that schools have a positive obligation to make changes to policies, practices, and environments to ensure access — not just inclusion in name, but in reality.
It also means schools can’t say:
“That’s not in our policy.”
“We don’t offer that here.”
“Your child just isn’t a good fit.”
None of these are acceptable reasons under the law.
What Is a Breach of the Human Rights Code?
A breach occurs when a school:
Fails to provide accommodations that are medically, developmentally, or legally supported
Punishes or excludes a child for behaviour tied to a disability
Refuses to individualize support when it is clearly needed
Applies rules rigidly in ways that disadvantage students with special needs
Example (Real Case We Encountered Recently):
A student required a computer to complete work as per his IEP. When he used it inappropriately to play games, the school confiscated it under their tech policy and refused to return it — even for him to do his work or take it home.
The parent reminded the school that this computer wasn’t optional — it was a required accommodation.
The school relented, but the teacher then humiliated the child in front of peers, saying he was “only getting it back because your mom complained.” This wasn’t just a failure of empathy — it was a breach of the Human Rights Code and outright bullying.
The Myth of “Undue Hardship”
Schools often push back by claiming accommodation is too difficult or costly.
But legally, there are only three grounds for a school to claim undue hardship:
Cost
Health and safety
Outside sources of funding
And here’s the key:
The burden of proof is on the school — not the parent.
1. Cost
A school must show that the financial cost of the accommodation would threaten its ability to operate — with detailed evidence, like budgets and forecasts.
Just saying “we can’t afford it” isn’t enough.
Claiming “we don’t do that here” is not a defense.
Private schools cannot require parents to fund a full-time 1:1 support worker and call that an accommodation. That’s just offloading hardship onto the parent — which is not what the Code allows.
2. Health and Safety Risks
This is one of the most misused justifications in education — especially in private schools, which often lack both regulation and trauma-informed training.
Let’s be clear:
A child who experiences meltdowns, dysregulation, or even physical aggression as a result of their disability is not automatically a safety risk.
To invoke undue hardship under the “health and safety” clause, a school must:
Conduct a true, reflective root cause analysis
Implement and document reasonable accommodations
Show that no accommodation could reduce the risk to an acceptable level
Anything less is a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
What Is a Root Cause Analysis?
A real RCA asks:“Why is this behaviour happening — and what have we done to understand and support the child before deciding they’re the problem?”
It requires:
A review of IEP, diagnosis, and behaviour history
Data on patterns, triggers, and environments
Parent and professional input
A reflection on the school’s own practices, such as:
Inconsistent routines
Sensory overstimulation
Lack of trauma-informed strategies
Staff-student relationship breakdowns
Even if schools do some of these steps, they must also show:
Why they couldn’t get to the root of the behaviour
What evidence they used to try
How they examined their own contribution to the escalation
Anything less is not a legitimate safety defense.
De-Escalation Training Is Non-Negotiable
Schools are expected to train staff to:
Recognize signs of dysregulation
Use nonverbal and calming cues, not threats or lectures
Avoid reasoning with a child in fight/flight/freeze mode
Reduce stimulation, not increase pressure
When staff fail to de-escalate and then blame the child for what happens next, they are:
Punishing the child for the school’s own failure
Ignoring the neuroscience of behaviour
Creating a hostile environment
Violating the Human Rights Code
Let’s be blunt: blaming a child for staff incompetence in de-escalation is ableism, not discipline.
3. Outside Sources of Funding
The law allows schools to explore whether external funding or support might ease their burden — such as community programs or agency support.
But again — they can’t:
Rely on this as the only option
Shift the responsibility entirely to the parent
Say “we won’t accommodate unless you pay for it”
That’s not accommodation. That’s abandonment.
What Can Parents Do?
If you believe your child’s rights have been violated:
Document everything. Emails, IEPs, incident reports, and communication logs.
Request an in-person meeting. Ask who is attending and bring a support person if you can.
Use the words. Say clearly: “I believe this may be a breach of my child’s rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code.”
Seek help. That’s where we come in.
Final Thoughts
You are not “difficult.”
You are not “demanding.”
You are a parent advocating for your child in a system that often counts on your silence.
Comments