Child D (by Mother D) v. The School District, 2026 BCHRT 106
Date Issued: April 22, 2026
File: CS-007609
Indexed as: Child D (by Mother D) v. The School District, 2026 BCHRT 106
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 D (by Mother D)
COMPLAINANT
AND:
The School District
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
Articling student for the Complainant: Christian Pollock
Counsel for the Respondent: David Bell
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Child D was a student at an elementary school in the School District [the School] from grades 2 to 7. He is Nisga’a on his father’s side. His mother, Mother D, alleges that School staff repeatedly diminished Child D’s intellect, denied him opportunities, and failed to ensure his safety because of his Indigenous identity. In this human rights complaint, Mother D alleges that the District discriminated against Child D based on his Indigenous identity, in violation of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.
[2] The District denies that Child D was treated adversely in his education, or that his Indigenous identity was a factor in any adverse impacts he experienced. It says that Child D was a bright student who had challenges arising predominantly from conflict between his parents. It asks the complaint to be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). Alternatively, it asks the Tribunal to dismiss allegations that happened more than one year before the complaint was filed because they are out of time: Code, s. 27(1)(g).
[3] I begin with what is undisputed. Child D is a bright, curious, friendly child. He has demonstrated resilience in the face of significant stress.
[4] I also acknowledge the broader context of anti-Indigenous discrimination within education systems, both as a legacy of residential schools and a place where pervasive anti-Indigenous stereotypes can manifest.
[5] In this case, however, that broader context would not be enough to support an inference that the District discriminated against Child D. Based on the materials that the parties have presented, I am satisfied that Mother D has no reasonable prospect of proving that the District treated Child D badly, or that he experienced any adverse impacts related to his Indigenous identity. This means the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. It is dismissed under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
[6] In this decision, I have anonymized the names of parties and individuals involved to protect the privacy of a minor: Rule 5(7). I caution the reader that the decision mentions self-harm involving a minor.
II DECISION
[7] The issue I must decide is whether Child D’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c) The onus is on the District.
[8] To decide this issue, I do not make findings of fact. Rather, I consider all the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence”: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] SCCA No. 171. I base my decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan,2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.
[9] A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority,2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 20; SEPQA v. Canadian Human Rights Commission,[1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. Child D does not have to prove his complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence he may introduce at a hearing. He only has to show that the evidence takes his complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 [Hill] at para. 27.
[10] In this complaint, Mother D advances 15 allegations of discrimination on behalf of her child. Generally, she says that these allegations represent instances where the District diminished Child D’s intellect, denied him opportunities, and failed to ensure his safety. To prove these allegations at a hearing, Mother D would have to prove that Child D was treated or impacted adversely in his education, and his Indigenous identity was a factor: Moore v. BC Education, 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. There is no dispute that in this case, the connection between Child D’s Indigenous identity and any adverse treatment or impacts would have to be proven by inference.
[11] A social context of discrimination against a protected group may support an inference. In this case, Mother D situates the complaint within the undisputed context of anti-Indigenous racism and negative stereotypes against Indigenous people, including that they are “lazy, unintelligent and dangerous”: Lindsay v. Toronto District School Board, 2020 HRTO 496 at para. 23. These stereotypes can manifest in schools and result in a gap in educational outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians: Servatius v. Alberni School District No. 70, 2020 BCSC 15 at para. 23. In “Expanding Our Vision: Cultural Equality and Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights” (2020) [Expanding Our Vision], Ardith Walpetko We’dalx Walkem KC (now Justice Walkem) identified education as a common area of anti-Indigenous discrimination: p. 27. One example of this is where schools fail to appropriately address bullying of Indigenous students: Expanding Our Vision at p. 27.
[12] However, social context alone is not enough to prove discrimination: Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275 at para. 104. An inference of discrimination must be rooted in the evidence of a particular case: Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), 2015 SCC 39 [Bombardier]. It is not enough to say that Child D is Indigenous and had negative experiences in school – there must be some facts capable of connecting the two.
[13] Mother D says generally that she observed other children being treated differently than Child D. However, she does not offer any examples of incidents where she observed differential treatment. Without any examples, this general assertion could not support an inference of discrimination. I do not consider it further.
[14] I turn now to Mother D’s allegations. I consider them each separately and then together. I find that Mother D has no reasonable prospect of proving that any of them amount to discrimination against Child D.
A. Background
[15] Child D attended the School between 2018 and 2024, for grades 2 – 7, except for one semester in a different district. Mother D’s allegations of discrimination arose between 2018 and 2022, while Child D was in grades 2 – 5.
[16] During this period, his parents had shared custody and were engaged in contentious family law proceedings. The District was aware of these proceedings, which generated court orders, protection orders, and changing schedules for pickups and drop-offs. Several District staff were subpoenaed to testify in court.
B. Allegation #1: November 22, 2018 (grade 2)
[17] On this day, Child D reported to Mother D that his teacher had put him in a corner until he cried. He says the other children made fun of him and called him names. Mother D emailed the teacher to complain, and the teacher offered to talk to her. There is no evidence about whether they talked or what the teacher’s version of events is about what happened that day in the classroom. In her affidavit, the teacher says that she cannot recall anything like this occurring in her classroom. She says she would not allow students to call each other names.
[18] Mother D does not explain how this incident amounts to discrimination against Child D. This is not to say that an incident like this could never be anti-Indigenous discrimination, but in this case there are no facts to explain how the Tribunal might reach that conclusion. There is no evidence, for example, about the context of the incident, including what triggered it, the teacher’s relationship with Child D and other students, or what the other students said. There is no evidence or argument which connects this incident to the Indigenous-specific impacts of residential schools. It is not my role to speculate. There is only Mother D’s limited account of what Child D told her while he was in grade 2. This limited evidence before me could not support a finding that this incident amounted to discrimination against Child D.
C. Allegation #2: May 9, 2019 (grade 2)
[19] On this day, Child D reported to Mother D that another student threw a sharp object at his face, cutting him above his right eye. Mother D reported this to the Principal. Mother D alleges that the Principal denied it was a metal object and claimed it was a stick.
[20] The Principal says that she looked around the School but did not find any metal objects that could have been used. She says that Child D and his friends had been playing with sticks at recess and that, after this incident, she made a rule that students were not permitted to play with sticks.
[21] Again, there is no evidence that could ground a finding that the Principal’s response to this incident was discriminatory. Mother D’s speculation that the object was metal is not enough. She has not disputed the Principal’s evidence that she spoke to the students involved and took steps to ensure it would not happen again. The evidence could not support that the Principal didn’t take the issue seriously or deal with it proportionately. There is no evidence to support that Child D’s Indigenous identity was a factor in the Principal’s response. This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
D. Allegation #3: January 10, 2020 (grade 3)
[22] This was Child D’s first day back at the School after one semester in a different school district. Mother D had opposed returning Child D to the School because of her view that he had been bullied there.
[23] At school, Child D tied a rope around his neck and expressed suicidal thoughts. The next day, the Principal reported the incident to both of Child D’s parents, the School counsellor, and the Child & Adolescent Response Team [CART].
[24] In the complaint, Mother D blames the School for ignoring or denying that Child D was being bullied, which she believes gave rise to the incident at school. She reported this concern to CART.
[25] CART met with Child D, each of his parents, and the school counsellor. CART completed a “Child & Youth Brief Assessment”. The Assessment acknowledged Mother D’s view that Child D was being bullied, but noted that Child D did not indicate anything about bullying, and neither the father nor the school counsellor supported that belief. The Assessment did not identify any specific mental health diagnoses but concluded that Child D was responding to “extreme psycho-social stressors” related to “multiple changes and transitions and ongoing parental conflict”. The Assessment made recommendations to reduce Child D’s exposure to parental conflict and ensure Child D has appropriate outlets for his emotions. Nothing in the Assessment supports Mother D’s view that the School’s actions or inactions were a factor in Child D’s distress.
[26] It is unclear how Mother D says the District discriminated against Child D in this incident. The undisputed evidence is that the District took the incident seriously and referred Child D for mental health supports. The CART assessment does not support Mother D’s view that the root cause of Child D’s distress was bullying, or that the District was failing to ensure his safety. I appreciate that, as Child D’s mother, Mother D would have insights into his mental health and struggles. However, she has not pointed to facts to support this allegation aside from her own beliefs. This is not enough to ground a finding of discrimination. The allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
E. Allegation #4: March 11, 2020 (grade 3)
[27] On this day, Child D told Mother D that his teacher had held up his work in front of the class and compared it unfavourably with someone else’s work. He said the teacher asked the class what score they would give each student, and everyone said Child D’s would be a 1 out of 5. This upset Child D.
[28] Mother D wrote to the School about this incident, and the teacher apologized. He acknowledged that, while it was not his intention, Child D felt embarrassed. The teacher wrote:
[Child D] is a hard-working, clever and involved student in the classroom. I would not want to do anything to hamper those qualities.
Again, I apologize for any poor decision on my part. I will continue to try every day to be the best teacher I can be and encourage students to have a lifelong love for learning.
Please relay this apology to [Child D].
[29] Aside from general submissions about anti-Indigenous stereotypes, Mother D does not point to facts that could prove this incident amounted to discrimination based on Child D’s Indigenous identity. The teacher took responsibility for a misjudgment, and apologized with praise for Child D. There is no reasonable prospect the Tribunal could find this incident amounted to discrimination against Child D.
F. Allegation #5: September 8, 2020 (grade 4)
[30] As noted above, Child D’s teachers, and the School, agree that he is a bright boy, who is curious, inquisitive, and keen to learn.
[31] Mother D thought that Child D was gifted, and was advocating that he be placed in a gifted class. At her request, the School did screening for giftedness. This entailed having both parents, and Child D’s current and previous teachers, fill out questionnaires. Only Mother D’s questionnaire suggested that Child D was in a gifted range. The others all scored Child D very similarly – not in the gifted range. The School concluded, and reported to Mother D, that Child D did not demonstrate signs of giftedness and he would not be referred for further testing. In their affidavits, Child D’s teacher and Principal agree that they did not see signs that he was gifted. Mother D alleges this is evidence that the District was diminishing Child D’s intellect because he is Indigenous.
[32] The evidence could not support Mother D’s allegation that the District was diminishing Child D’s evidence, based on anti-Indigenous stereotypes. Mother D does not point to any evidence supporting her belief that Child D was gifted. She notes that he was doing well in school, particularly in science, physical education, and applied design, skills, and technology. However, his report cards, which are submitted into evidence, could not support a finding that Child D was doing exceptionally well in those areas. In any event, giftedness does not just mean smart or special; it is a specific kind of neurodiversity. Notably, Mother D was the only adult who appears to have thought Child D was gifted, and she does not explain how she arrived at that conclusion. This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
G. Allegation #6: October 5, 2020 (grade 4)
[33] Mother D alleges that Child D’s father was attending the school, contrary to a protection order. When she reminded the Principal about the order, the Principal said that the father had the right to pick up his son. Mother D reported this response to the police.
[34] The Principal says that she tried in good faith to follow various court orders, but it was difficult because she received conflicting information from Child D’s parents.
[35] Mother D does not explain how this incident adversely impacted Child D in his education. There is no reasonable prospect the Tribunal could find that, even if the father was attending the school contrary to the protection order, this amounted to discrimination against Child D by the District. This allegation is dismissed.
H. Allegation #7: January 10, 2021 (grade 4)
[36] There is no dispute that Child D’s grade 4 teacher called him “scatterbrained”. The teacher says that Child D was forgetful, and that she had identified an area of growth to develop effective work habits and organizational skills in the classroom. She felt “scatterbrained” was an accurate description of him at the time.
[37] On this day, Mother D confronted the teacher about calling Child D scatterbrained and surreptitiously recorded their conversation. The video is in evidence and I have reviewed it. Most of the video is Mother D talking. The teacher agrees she called Child D scatterbrained.
[38] “Scatterbrained” is not, on its own, a discriminatory slur. Mother D has not explained how this connects to a discriminatory stereotype about Indigenous children, or how this description adversely impacted Child D in his education. The evidence from the teacher, which is largely not contested, is that she had a very strong relationship with Child D. This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
[39] Next, Mother D says she asked the District not to place Child D in this teacher’s class again for grade 5, but they did anyway. I understand she says this was discrimination. The teacher says she had a strong relationship with Child D. The District submitted a form completed by Child D, where he specifically requested to stay with the teacher the following year.
[40] There is no evidence to support that the District’s decision to place Child D in this teacher’s class adversely impacted him in his education, or that his Indigenous identity played any role in the decision or any adverse impacts. The evidence is that Child D wanted to stay with the teacher. This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
I. Allegation #8: January 14, 2021 (grade 4)
[41] Child D reported to Mother D that another boy had punched him at school, and others had pushed him down and said, “no one cares about you”. Mother D reported this to the Principal.
[42] The Principal responded, explaining that she had talked to the kids involved and a witness. There was a disagreement about whether the other child punched Child D. The Principal says she spoke to both boys about “finding an adult for help, instead of taking things into their own hands when upset or frustrated”. She said she had not heard about Child D being pushed down, and asked for more information. She agreed that Child D had expressed that he felt no one cared about him. The Principal then went on to observe:
[Child D] is struggling to connect with his peers. He is very social and often has kids to play with, however his relationships become strained [when] there is a disagreement. He has difficulty problem solving when he is angry and can swear or become physical with other students. He also frequently shuts down when he is upset and does not readily accept the help of adults.
The Principal gave several examples of incidents demonstrating these struggles. She concluded that the School was hoping that working with a counsellor would help Child D “learn how to better problem solve when he has disagreements with his peers and therefore build stronger connections.”
[43] Mother D says she felt that the School’s response diminished the harm to Child D and blamed him. She says it was discriminatory.
[44] On the face of their email exchange, there is no reasonable prospect that the Tribunal would find the District’s response to this incident was discrimination. The Principal investigated the incident and offered a resolution. She shared her perspective that Child D was struggling, giving specific examples, and then offered a constructive path forward. The Tribunal could not conclude, based on this evidence, that the School treated Child D adversely in connection with this incident or that his Indigenous identity was a factor in its response.
[45] In her complaint, Mother D also alleges that the Principal refused to follow her suggestions to keep Child D active and out of trouble, including by putting him into sports at lunch. The Principal denies this, and says that Child D was allowed to do what he wanted at lunch and that she did not prevent him from playing sports or being active. Aside from her bald assertion, Mother D does not point to evidence capable of proving that the Principal treated Child D adversely by refusing to keep him active, or that his Indigenous identity played any role in how the Principal supported him. This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
J. Allegation #9: April 1, 2022 (grade 5)
[46] Child D’s father emailed his teacher with questions about his attendance. The teacher responded by email, explaining “I also have concerns about his attendance”, citing “ongoing absences, lates, and occasional early pickups” which were contributing to Child D getting further behind academically. The teacher noted that, on that day, Mother D had dropped Child D off at 11:15 am. She expressed the hope that the School and both Child D’s parents could work together for his academic success. The teacher then forwarded this email to Mother D, explaining that “it’s important information you should know as well”.
[47] Mother D says that, by communicating with Child D’s father about her “comings and goings” at the school, the teacher and Principal were harassing her and violating a protection order. Mother D says this caused her to fear that the father could harm her or Child D. She reported this to the Superintendent.
[48] The Director of Instruction responded to Mother D’s email, explaining:
In situations of shared custody school staff are expected to communicate student information, including attendance, progress and challenges, with both parents who hold guardianship and decision making responsibilities…
The Director explained that, at the father’s request, Child D’s teacher had given him information about his progress and then forwarded the same information to Mother D to keep her informed. He confirmed that the School’s communications would remain focused on Child D and not include information about either parent’s comings or goings.
[49] Mother D does not explain how this incident adversely impacted Child D in his education and there is no evidence to support that it did, or that his Indigenous identity was a factor in how the teacher communicated with his parents. There are no protection orders in evidence, and nothing to support a view that this communication placed Child D in danger. This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
K. Allegation #10: April 5, 2022 (grade 5)
[50] In January 2022, the Principal says that she asked Child D’s father whether he had plans for spring break. She asked whether Child D would be interested in a free spot at a community day camp, and the father said yes. The Principal says she then talked to Mother D about the camp, but Mother D did not want Child D to go to the camp.
[51] Mother D alleges that the District shared her personal information with Child D’s father and signed him up for the camp without permission. She says this was against a protection order. She questions why the School suggested that Child D go to a free spring break camp when they did not need financial assistance.
[52] Mother D does not explain how offering to support Child D going to a spring break camp adversely impacted him in his education, and there is no evidence to support that it did. This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
L. Allegation #11: April 14, 2022 (grade 5)
[53] The Principal told Mother D that Child D was having trouble making and keeping friends because of his behaviour. The Principal explains that this was her observation, which she reported to Child D’s parents, but never said directly to Child D.
[54] Mother D disputes this. She says she observed that Child D had friends.
[55] There is no reasonable prospect the Tribunal could find that this was discrimination against Child D. It is appropriate for a school principal to talk to a parent about their observation of a child’s behaviour and social life at school. Aside from saying that Child D has friends, Mother D has not pointed to evidence to explain why the Principal’s assessment – based on her direct observation and observations of other School staff working with Child D – was wrong or based on discriminatory stereotypes. She also has not explained how the Principal’s assessment was negatively impacting Child D at school. The fact that Mother D disagrees with the Principal is not evidence of discrimination.
M. Allegation #12: April 14, 2022 (grade 5)
[56] Mother D alleges that Child D’s teacher was keeping him in at lunchtime every Friday, without her consent. The teacher denies this. She says that she would sometimes ask students to stay inside if they were sick, and there was a period when Mother D had asked that Child D not go outside because of a broken arm. She says that Child D would sometimes ask to stay inside on Fridays, and she would invite him to. She says she observed that Child D enjoyed this time, referring to it as a “coffee shop date, as we would drink tea and talk about life”.
[57] Mother D has not explained how Child D was adversely impacted by staying inside with his teacher at lunch on Fridays. She has not contradicted the teacher’s evidence that Child D sometimes asked to stay inside and enjoyed his time with the teacher. There is no reasonable prospect the Tribunal would find this was adverse treatment based on Child D’s Indigenous identity.
N. Allegation #13: May 20, 2022 (grade 5)
[58] The School had an Indigenous Education Enhancement Worker, who provided social/emotional and cultural support to Indigenous students, and age-appropriate discussions about Canada’s colonial history involving Indigenous people. In his affidavit, the Worker explains that, within that context, he would share his own experience as the grandchild of residential school survivors and a survivor of the 60s Scoop/Millenium Scoop/Stolen Children era. He worked with Child D, and says they developed a bond. The Worker recalls that Child D was “smart, curious, and cerebral” and says that they worked to navigate “some emotional concerns involving his parents’ separation”. The Worker says that he was on leave beginning in January 2022 and never returned to the School after that.
[59] In the complaint, Mother D alleges that in May 2022, the Worker told Child D about his experience of being removed from his family and placed in foster care. She said that Child D was emotional recounting this to her.
[60] Leaving aside whether this incident could have happened during the period when Mother D alleges it did, it could not be discrimination. Mother D argues that the Worker subjected Child D to “age-inappropriate learning”, but she does not explain what this was. The fact that Child D was emotional is not evidence that he was exposed to inappropriate content or was discriminated against. Colonialism and its impacts can be difficult topics. This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
O. Allegation #14: June 24, 2022 (grade 5)
[61] On this date, the School called the police to report a concern that Mother D was intending to take Child D out of the province. The police attended school when Mother D picked Child D up. They spoke to her before letting her leave with Child D.
[62] Mother D says that Child D appeared terrified – he was “crying, expressing distress, and asking what was going on”. She says there was no basis for the School to do this, and the allegation that she was going to take Child D out of the province was false.
[63] The Principal explains that the police had previously alerted the School that they were “concerned about [Child D’s] safety and potential risk that [Mother D] may attempt to take [him] out of province”. She says that Child D mentioned several times to her and the School counsellor that he was afraid his mother was going to take him out of the province. On June 24, Child D’s father shared text messages where it appeared Mother D was saying she was going to take Child D out of the province that day. The Principal then sought advice from the Ministry of Child and Family Development. The Ministry recommended she call the police, which she did.
[64] At a hearing, the Tribunal could find this incident negatively impacted Child D. However, there is no evidence that his Indigenous identity was a factor in the Principal’s decision to call the police. Whether Mother D agrees with the School’s rationale or not, it is undisputed that the Principal called the police because of a concern that Mother D was going to take Child D out of the province. This is unrelated to Child D’s Indigenous identity and could not be discrimination against him.
P. Allegation #15: June 29, 2022 (grade 5)
[65] In Mother D’s complaint form, she says that on this day, Child D was “severely and savagely beaten by another boy”. In her affidavit, Mother D describes the incident differently, saying that Child D told her he was chased and punched by another boy. She took him to the hospital, and reported the issue to the Principal. In her complaint form, Mother D says the Principal lied to her by claiming that the other boy involved was also Indigenous, when he was not. She has not expanded on this.
[66] The Principal says that the students reported this incident at the time. They reported that it began when Child D said a swear word. When another student told him not to swear, Child D called the student fat. Another student stepped in to object that this was body shaming. Child D and the student got into a shoving match, and the student sat on Child D. The supervision aid broke up the fight. The Principal says that she assessed that no first aid was required for any child. Later that day, she spoke to Child D, who said he wanted to be picked up. She called Mother D, who came to pick him up.
[67] There is no evidence to support that Child D’s Indigenous identity was a factor in the fight, or the School’s response. I understand that Mother D alleges that the School did not take her allegations that Child D was being bullied seriously, and that this a type of anti-Indigenous discrimination in schools: Expanding Our Vision at p. 27. However, again, she has not pointed to any evidence in support of this broad allegation. She has not contradicted the Principal’s account of having talked to the kids involved and resolving the issue. The Principal’s report that the incident began when Child D swore is not evidence in this case that she was treating Child D based on discriminatory stereotypes or unfairly blaming him for the fight. This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
III CONCLUSION
[68] I have considered all of Mother D’s allegations separately and I conclude by considering them together. I understand that Mother D says that, together, they illustrate a pattern whereby the District diminished Child D’s intellect, denied him opportunities, and failed to ensure his safety. Respectfully, the evidence could not support such a finding. To the contrary, the largely undisputed evidence is that School staff were supportive of Child D and tried to support him through a time of significant psychological stress related to parental conflict. Their attempts to talk to Mother D about his behavioural or social challenges could not support a finding that they were discriminating against him. Though Mother D perceived that Child D was being bullied and the School was not supporting him, she has not pointed to any evidence aside from her own belief capable of supporting such a finding. Similarly, Mother D’s perspective that Child D had a greater intellect than the District acknowledged appears based purely on her own belief, and is not grounded in evidence of his academic performance. That said, the District staff who worked with Child D consistently communicated to Mother D their positive impressions of Child D – calling him bright, curious, friendly, and inquisitive, and describing a bond with him.
[69] There is no reasonable prospect that the Tribunal could find that any of Mother D’s allegations, considered separately or together, amounted to discrimination against Child D based on his Indigenous identity. The complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair