Parker v. Canada’s National History Society, 2026 BCHRT 210
Date Issued: October 6, 2026
File(s): CS-001082
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:
Michael Parker
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Canada’s National History Society
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Ijeamaka Anika
On his own behalf: Michael Parker
Counsel for the Respondent: Mark Alward
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Michael Parker is a high school teacher with dyslexia. In 2019, he applied for the Governor General’s History Award for Excellence in Teaching [Award]. Canada’s National History Society [Society] administers the Award. Mr. Parker’s application was not shortlisted and was ultimately unsuccessful. Mr. Parker alleges that the Society discriminated against him in services based on his disability contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code. He says that the Society’s application process relied on written submissions and was designed from a neurotypical perspective, that the Society did not accommodate his disability, and that when he asked for the reasons why application was unsuccessful, the Society relied on criteria it had not disclosed to applicants.
[2] The Society denies discriminating and applies to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success under s. 27(1)(c). The Society denies any connection between Mr. Parker’s unsuccessful application and his disability. The Society says Mr. Parker’s application was not shortlisted because it did not sufficiently demonstrate students’ engagement in historical thinking and lacked the distinguishing features of successful submissions. It says the decision was based on the merits of the application, not Mr. Parker’s disability, which it says it considered in reviewing his application.
[3] The issues I must decide are whether there is no reasonable prospect that Mr. Parker will prove, at a hearing, that his disability was a factor in the Society’s decision not to advance his application. If Mr. Parker could prove that element of his claim, I must then decide whether the Society is reasonably certain to prove that it accommodated him to the point of undue hardship.
[4] For the following reasons, I deny the application. I am not persuaded that there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Parker will prove a connection between his dyslexia and the outcome of his application. Nor am I persuaded that the Society is reasonably certain to prove that it accommodated Mr. Parker to the point of undue hardship. 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.
II BACKGROUND
[5] This background is taken from the materials filed by the parties.
A. The Award and the 2019 Application Process
[6] The Society is a national charity dedicated to strengthening understanding of Canada’s histories. Since 1996, it has administered the Award, which recognizes kindergarten to grade 12 teachers for innovative and impactful approaches to teaching Canadian history. Since 2002, six awards have been presented each year. Each recipient receives $2,500, $1,000 for their school, a medal, and travel and accommodation to attend the award ceremony. The Society is solely responsible for setting the criteria and for the intake, review and selection of recipients. The Governor General lends the name to the Award and presents it but does not take part in the selection process.
[7] In 2019, the published criteria required teachers to demonstrate a commitment to Canadian history in their teaching and to demonstrate that their teaching had an impact [criteria]. The Society says the criteria were aligned with educational expectations, curricular competencies, and best practices, particularly using student-led inquiry and historical thinking based on the Historical Thinking Concepts framework developed by the late Dr. Peter Seixas at the University of British Columbia. The criteria listed several indicators of impact, including that students gained an awareness of the nature of historical thinking, learned to evaluate history content, experienced a variety of teaching and assessment strategies, and were actively involved in their learning of history.
[8] Applicants were asked to submit a project representative of their approach to teaching history. The application had five short-answer questions and required a lesson plan or project synopsis, three samples of student work, an assessment rubric, and two letters of support, all submitted through an online portal. The instructions stated that the Award recognizes a wide variety of projects, including those that use photography, art, artifacts, oral history, food or land as sources of historical evidence. The application form also asked applicants to list any URLs that housed material related to their project and to describe the role that material played. Finally, the instructions stated that “staff will contact your nominee and assist them with completing their application.”
[9] Applications are reviewed in two stages. At the first stage, at least two Society staff members review each application using a shortlisting checklist and recommend whether it should advance. The Society provided a spreadsheet detailing the applications for that year. At the second stage, an external committee chooses the recipients from the shortlist. In 2019, the Society received 64 applications and shortlisted 25.
B. Mr. Parker’s Project and Application
[10] In the fall of 2018, Mr. Parker developed a Grade 10 history project on Canada’s involvement in the First World War. The project had two components. In the first, students were required to research a historical topic and create a project, described as a “historical artifact,” that demonstrated their understanding of the period. The project was displayed it in the school library and explained its significance to other students and staff. In the second, students researched Canadian soldiers who died at Vimy Ridge using attestation papers held by the national archives and identified something interesting or unique in those records. The soldiers’ names were written on ribbons and tied to a maple tree at the front of the school, and Mr. Parker made wooden silhouettes of soldiers for the school cenotaph. Mr. Parker says the project engaged Dr. Seixas’ historical thinking concepts, including through a lesson on what makes something a historical artifact, and that all his students, including those with significant learning difficulties, were able to take part.
[11] The project drew attention in the school and the community. On November 9, 2018, the town’s mayor, school board officials, the president of the local legion, and the local Member of Parliament visited the student-created cenotaph and spoke with students. Each participating student received a Certificate of Appreciation through the local Member of Parliament. The school district published an article about the project on its website, and Mr. Parker documented the project on his class website.
[12] Mr. Parker says he was encouraged by colleagues and school administrators to apply for the Award in 2019. He submitted a lesson plan and two letters of support. Rather than uploading samples of student work and an assessment rubric through the portal, he provided a link to his class website, where those materials were housed. The Society says it would not usually review material provided through a link, but did so in Mr. Parker’s case, and describes this as an accommodation.
[13] The application included a field asking applicants for any additional notes or comments that would help reviewers understand the nature and value of their project. Mr. Parker used this field to disclose that he is dyslexic, stating: “Please be advised the Mr. Parker is Dyslexic and as such there are bond to spelling and grammar mistakes” (as written). The note also stated that his referee’s letter had been uploaded under samples of student work. Mr. Parker says he did not directly ask for accommodation but expected the Society to consult him about what he needed for submitting his application. The Programs Director says the reviewers were aware of Mr. Parker’s disclosure of dyslexia and assessed his application based on its substance, rather than any spelling or grammar errors.
[14] Mr. Parker describes himself as neurodiverse, with specific learning difficulties with features of dyslexia. He says his dyslexia significantly affects his organizational skills, his written output, and his cognitive processing in text-heavy formats.
C. The Assessment of Mr. Parker’s application
[15] According to the Programs Director, none of the reviewers recommended that Mr. Parker’s application advance to the final stage. She says his application received one “maybe” and two “no” assessments, and that the reviewers noted the students made use of different learning styles, but that the application did not provide evidence of students engaging with historical thinking.
[16] The spreadsheet detailing the applications set out the 64 applications received in 2019 and the 25 applications selected for the next stage. Two reviewers found Mr. Parker’s work interesting and promising, but that neither recommended it for the shortlist. A third reviewer did not recommend Mr. Parker for the shortlist but did not enter their reasons in the spreadsheet.
[17] The Programs Director says the reviewers assessed the student work and other materials on Mr. Parker’s class website, even though they had not been submitted through the portal. She says the primary evidence of student learning on the website was photographs with little description, and that the student work consisted of the recreated artifacts and a one-page worksheet about each soldier researched. She says projects of this kind were common in Canadian classrooms and have difficulty advancing in the competition because many similar projects are submitted, and to succeed they must have a distinctive component and show significant historical thinking and student engagement. She says that in 2019, reviewers treated as distinctive those projects that included Indigenous perspectives, innovative use of technology, or community engagement, or that offered unique and authentic learning experiences adaptable by other educators.
D. Mr. Parker’s Unsuccessful Application and Request for Reasons
[18] On July 5, 2019, the Society informed Mr. Parker that his application was unsuccessful. It described Mr. Parker as a passionate and dedicated teacher, said his work had enabled students to conduct important historical research, and said it was clear his classroom was engaged through the hands-on nature of the project. The Society told Mr. Parker to contact the Programs Director if he wanted further feedback on his submission.
[19] On August 12, 2019, Mr. Parker emailed the Programs Director asking for feedback on the evaluation of his application and what modifications or adaptations had been used in evaluating it to accommodate his dyslexia. In her response on September 24, 2019, the Programs Director confirmed that the reviewers had seen Mr. Parker’s note disclosing his dyslexia, and that his submission was evaluated on the content of the project submitted for consideration. The response also explained that the projects most likely to succeed were those that encouraged students to conduct historical research, engage deeply with historical thinking concepts, and demonstrate inquiry-driven learning through student-generated questions and exemplars showing evidence of historical thinking. Mr. Parker says the Programs Director’s response referred to evaluation criteria that had not been stated in the application materials, including the distinctive elements described above and inquiry-based student research. In an email dated October 10, 2019, the Programs Director told Mr. Parker that his email had encouraged the Society to seek advice on how it might make its process more inclusive going forward.
III DECISION
[20] The issue I must decide is whether Mr. Parker’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on the Society to establish the basis for dismissal.
[21] Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to remove complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing.
[22] The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, it looks at 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. The Tribunal must base its 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.
[23] 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 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 [Hill] at para. 27.
[24] Many human rights complaints raise issues of credibility. This is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to deny an application to dismiss: Evans v. University of British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 1026 at para. 34. However, if there are foundational or key issues of credibility, the complaint must go to a hearing: Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para. 67.
[25] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Parker would have to prove that: (1) he had a disability (dyslexia); (2) the Society’s process of determining his application for the Award adversely impacted him regarding services; and (3) his disability was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. His disability need not be the only or the main factor. A connection may be established where an otherwise neutral standard or process adversely affects a person because of a protected characteristic: British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), 1999 CanLII 646 (SCC) [Grismer] at para. 15.
[26] If Mr. Parker proves these three elements, as required by the Moore case, the burden would shift to the Society to establish a bona fide reasonable justification for the impact.
[27] The Society does not dispute Mr. Parker has dyslexia, nor does it dispute that Mr. Parker can establish his unsuccessful application for the Award amounted to an adverse impact. The Moore element in dispute is whether there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Parker will prove his dyslexia was a factor in the outcome of his application. In the alternative, the Society argues that it is reasonably certain to prove that its process was justified. I will consider these arguments in turn.
[28] Regarding whether there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Parker will prove a nexus between his dyslexia and the outcome of his application, the Society says there is no evidence that any aspect of its process disadvantaged people with learning disabilities, or that Mr. Parker’s disability had anything to do with the outcome. It says the Award is project-based, that student work is the primary focus of the evaluation, and that Mr. Parker’s application fell short on the key question of inquiry-driven student work, which his disability did not affect. It says it accommodated Mr. Parker by disregarding spelling and grammar and by reviewing materials he had not submitted as directed. It says the complaint reflects Mr. Parker’s disappointment with the result of a competitive process, not discrimination.
[29] Mr. Parker argues that the application process was restricted to written, text-based submissions with no alternative formats, and that it required applicants to demonstrate their teaching through five written answers. He says his dyslexia affects his organization, written output and processing in text-heavy formats, and that the process therefore prevented him from demonstrating his teaching on an equal footing with applicants without disabilities. He says the outcome reflects a non-inclusive process, not his professional merit.
1. The Society’s reliance on setting aside spelling and grammar
[30] I begin with an aspect of the Society’s position that I do not accept. The Society says, in effect, that because its reviewers disregarded spelling and grammar errors, Mr. Parker’s dyslexia could not have affected the assessment. That argument treats dyslexia as a matter of spelling and grammar. Mr. Parker’s evidence, which the Society does not challenge, is that his dyslexia affects his organization, written output, and the way he processes information in text-heavy formats. Setting aside spelling and grammar errors responds to only one part of that description.
[31] The question is whether there is evidence capable of supporting an inference that the effects of Mr. Parker’s dyslexia, including on his organization and written expression, played some part in the decision not to advance his application. I am satisfied there is. My reasons follow.
2. Could the evidence support an inference that Mr. Parker’s dyslexia was a factor in the adverse impact?
[32] The Society argues that Mr. Parker’s dyslexia was not a factor in their process or decision and that his application did not advance beyond the screening stage because the reviewers did not see evidence of students engaging with historical thinking. It also argues that his project was of a common type and lacked the distinctive elements that set successful applications apart. Therefore, although reviewers found Mr. Parker’s work interesting and promising, they did not recommend it.
[33] There is some evidence in the record capable of supporting a nexus between Mr. Parker’s dyslexia and the outcome of the application process. Mr. Parker says that his dyslexia affects his organization and written expression. On the evidence, he used the additional notes or comments field to disclose his dyslexia and identify the location of his referee’s letter, rather than to provide further information about his project. The reviewers also noted that the evidence of student learning on his website consisted primarily of photographs with little description. Taken together, these facts can support an inference that the effects of Mr. Parker’s dyslexia influenced how he presented information in his application, and that this may have contributed to the decision not to advance it.
[34] In my view, this evidence takes the complaint out of the realm of conjecture. At this stage, Mr. Parker need only point to evidence capable of supporting an inference that his disability was a factor in the decision not to advance his application.
[35] Discrimination is often established through circumstantial evidence and inference: Radek v. Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd. (No. 3), 2005 BCHRT 302 at para. 482; Mann v. JACE Holdings, 2012 BCHRT 234 at para. 105. An inference may be drawn where it is reasonably supported by the evidence and is more probable than competing inferences: Vestad v. Seashell Ventures Inc., 2001 BCHRT 38 at para. 44.
[36] The Society offers alternative explanations for why Mr. Parker’s application was not advanced. However, at this stage, I am not persuaded that the Society is reasonably certain to establish those explanations as the more probable account of what occurred. Nor do its arguments persuade me that Mr. Parker’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. I explain my reasons below.
[37] First, the Society says the reviewers looked beyond the written components, reviewed Mr. Parker’s class website, and found the work interesting and promising, and that their concern was with what the student work showed rather than how Mr. Parker described it. That may be so. But this argument asks me to accept the Society’s account of why the reviewers reached the conclusions they did. The reviewers’ observation that the evidence of student learning on the website consisted of photographs with little description is capable of more than one reading. It may be, as the Society says, an observation about the student work. It may also reflect that Mr. Parker’s written explanation of his project and his students’ learning was limited, in a process where other applicants used written explanation to show the very thing the reviewers found missing. Choosing between those readings requires a more extensive examination and weighing of the evidence than I can do on an application to dismiss.
[38] Second, the Society argues that a fuller written explanation could not have changed the substance of the student work that was submitted. That argument may ultimately be accepted at a hearing. However, at this stage, it does not mean that Mr. Parker has no reasonable prospect of proving that the effects of his dyslexia influenced how he presented his project materials and that this, in turn, was a factor in the decision not to advance his application.
[39] Third, the Society argues that Mr. Parker has not explained why he completed his application as he did or what additional information he would have provided had he been able to present the project differently. While that evidence is limited, Mr. Parker is not required at this stage to prove his complaint. He says that his dyslexia affects his organization and written expression and that the text-based application process limited his ability to fully present his work. The Society does not dispute the effects of his disability. Together with the evidence about the written aspects of his application, this is enough to take the connection out of the realm of conjecture.
[40] Fourth, the Society also relies on the absence of distinctive elements, which relates to the design of a project rather than how it was described. That reason may have played a role in the outcome. But Mr. Parker need only show that his disability was a factor, and the existence of another reason does not exclude that possibility.
[41] The Society’s July 5, 2019, letter recognized that Mr. Parker’s students conducted historical research and that the hands-on nature of the project engaged the students in his class. The Society relies on the letter to show that the reviewers understood the project. However, the letter gave no reasons for the decision, and its positive comments appear inconsistent with the explanations the Society later provided. Mr. Parker says those explanations shifted over time. Resolving the significance of the letter and the weight to be given to it are matters for a hearing.
[42] I recognize that part of Mr. Parker’s complaint reflects a disagreement with the reviewers’ assessment of his project. He says the project engaged historical thinking concepts and included community involvement. However, this decision is not a review of whether the Society correctly assessed the merits of his application. The question at the hearing will be whether Mr. Parker’s disability was a factor in the assessment of his application and the decision not to advance it and, if so, whether the Society can show that it accommodated him to the point of undue hardship.
[43] At this stage, I am not persuaded that there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Parker will establish that his disability was a factor in the decision not to advance his application.
3. Mr. Parker’s other concerns about the process
[44] Mr. Parker raises several other concerns about the Award process, including the assessment criteria, the evaluation records, the reviewers, and the Society’s use of the Governor General’s name. To the extent these concerns are unrelated to his disability, they do not engage the Code. To the extent they bear on how his application was assessed, they may be considered at a hearing. Given my conclusion that the complaint should proceed, it is unnecessary to determine whether any of these concerns would independently support his complaint.
[45] Next, I turn to the Society’s argument that it is reasonably certain to prove that its process was justified.
4. Is the Society reasonably certain to prove that its process was justified?
[46] To justify the process it adopted for determining Mr. Parker’s application at a hearing, the Society would have to prove that: (1) it adopted the process for a purpose rationally connected to the function being performed, (2) it adopted the standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate purpose; and (3) the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate purpose. This third element encompasses its duty to accommodate Mr. Parker to the point of undue hardship: Grismer at para. 20. If the process is justified, there is no discrimination.
[47] Regarding the first element, the purpose of the Award, as set out by the Society, is to recognize excellence in the teaching of Canadian history, to inspire teachers and schools to strive for excellence, and to share effective teaching practices. The application components, including the written answers, lesson plan, student work, rubric and letters of support, allow reviewers to understand a project and to assess its impact on student learning. The Criteria draw on an established framework for historical thinking. I am satisfied the Society is reasonably certain to prove that its process was adopted for a purpose rationally connected to the function of the Award.
[48] Mr. Parker says the Society’s criteria were improvised and applied inconsistently. There is no evidence that the Society adopted its process for any purpose other than identifying excellent teaching projects, or that it did not believe the process was necessary for that purpose. The Programs Director’s evidence is that the considerations used to identify distinctive projects were applied to all applicants. Even if those considerations could have been set out more fully in the Criteria, that would not suggest the process was adopted in bad faith. I am satisfied the Society is reasonably certain to prove that it adopted its process in good faith.
[49] Mr. Parker argues that once he disclosed his dyslexia, the Society had a duty to ask him what accommodation he needed, and that it instead decided for itself what his disclosure called for. He says it should have offered him alternative formats, such as oral or video submissions. He also points to a statement in the application instructions that the Society would contact nominees and assist them with completing their application and says this did not happen.
[50] The Society says it is reasonably certain to prove it accommodated Mr. Parker. It says its process was not limited to written evidence, that it reviewed his class website even though he did not follow the portal process, and that it set aside spelling and grammar. It says it was not required to redesign the Award process. These arguments may ultimately be persuasive at a hearing. However, in the context of this dismissal application, I am not satisfied that the Society is reasonably certain to succeed. My reasons are next.
[51] Mr. Parker disclosed in his application that he is dyslexic and that his application would contain spelling and grammar errors. The Society responded by disregarding spelling and grammar in its assessment. However, its evidence does not indicate that it considered whether Mr. Parker’s disclosure gave rise to accommodation needs elsewhere in the application process. As I have explained, Mr. Parker says his dyslexia affects not only spelling and grammar, but also his organization and written expression. He argues that, once he disclosed his disability, the Society ought to have contacted him to discuss accommodation needs, particularly given the application guidelines stating that “staff will contact your nominee and assist them with completing their application.” The Society does not address whether it contacted Mr. Parker or explain why doing so would not have addressed the barriers he identifies.
[52] In addition, the Society makes no submissions about whether alternative formats, such as the oral or video formats Mr. Parker describes, were considered, or about any hardship that such accommodations would have caused. In the absence of that evidence and based on the other evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the Society is reasonably certain to prove that it accommodated Mr. Parker to the point of undue hardship.
IV CONCLUSION
[53] The Society’s application to dismiss under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code is denied.
Ijeamaka Anika
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal