Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Melanie Gamache
Brandon University
030060
April 4, 2016
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 2
Education is fundamental need for every citizen in Canada to understand and contribute
to society in a meaningful way. Public schools in every province have a legal obligation to
provide every child with an education, which includes students with mental and physical
disabilities, however Canada has no federal legislation protecting a child with a disabilitys right
to inclusive education. (Towle, H., 2015, p. 5). Inclusive education is where students with
special needs learn within a regular classroom, in which the regular classroom teacher adapts the
curriculum to meet the needs of all students. Integration and inclusion are meant to develop
social-emotional skills in addition to academic skills. Levels of integration are not absolute, as
there are times when individualized education is best for a student when it is outside of the
regular classroom.
In many traditional education systems, special needs children have been removed from
regular classes to be educated in alternate settings, sometimes completely isolated from other
students and staff members. In these alternate settings, exceptional students learning would
often be under the care of a Resource Teacher but typically under the supervision of Educational
Assistants (EAs), some of whom have limited or non-specific training on how to support the
needs of the children they are working one-on-one with, daily. Cases of unreasonable force and
commonplace in many schools across Canada. Even more unfortunate, the practice continues in
some schools in Canada despite the amount of legislation and literature that speaks to the
contrary.
Under the law, educational institutions, including School Boards and School Divisions
must meet the standards of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Legally, school divisions
must not discriminate against students and the question arises when the decision to place special
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3
or the best interests of the child. This is further complicated when a special needs child cannot
advocate for themselves due to limited mental capacity or limited communication capabilities
and the advocates are the parents of the children. Because legislation, precedent setting cases,
and disability organizations aid parents and other childrens advocates to be informed about the
rights and responsibilities of disabled Canadians and schools, the standards for the education of
Litigation over the past five years regarding cases of the integration of special needs
students in regular classrooms has become increasingly more complex, but there is a definite
shift in the way the courts rule when it comes to allegations of discrimination. No longer is
justice served when students are just removed or retained within the walls of a regular classroom,
but under careful consideration of a students specific needs. The four cases that follow involve
different families and students with different disabilities. The common factor is the question of
discrimination based on a disability when it came to integration of the children in the regular
Legislation
Legislation related to the conduct of public schools falls under each Provinces
jurisdiction and as such, varies slightly from province to province. Universal to all provinces is
that the Canadian educational system exists within the context of the Charter of Rights, which
stipulates that all individuals are equal under the law and free from discrimination, including
mental or physical disabilities (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, s. 15). Canadian
mental or physical disabilities into the regular classroom. In Manitoba, Bill 13, or Appropriate
Educational Programming (AEP), was amended to the Manitoba Public Schools Act in 2005 and
a pupil in a regular class of his or her peers, (Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth, 2005,
s. 2) at either the catchment school or another school if the catchment school does not provide
In Ontario, The Education Act provides specific regulations to ensure that all students
have access to appropriate programming including Regulation 306, which requires school boards
to provide special education programs and services to exceptional students, (Ontario Human
Rights Commission, n.d, Overview, para. 4), including the establishment of the Identification,
Placement and Review Committees (IPRC) and Special Education Appeal Boards to determine
appropriate programming for exceptional students. The Ontario Disability Policy also requires
educational institutions to create programs to be included and accessible for persons with
disabilities, and to take an active role in the accommodation process, (Ontario Human Rights
The BC School Act recognizes that any school aged individual is entitled to enroll in an
educational program provided by the board of a school district, (BC Ministry of Education,
1996, s. 2). The British Columbia Special Education Policy (2013) indicates that all students,
including those with special needs are entitled to equitable access to learning, achievement and
the pursuit of excellence, (BC Ministry of Education, 2013, p.2) but that doesnt necessarily
mean integration in the regular classroom. This revised policy comes after a landmark Supreme
Court ruling in 2012 to ensure use of resources and programming are appropriate and used in the
Emily Eaton was a 12 year old girl with cerebral palsy and her parents wanted her to be
fully integrated into their neighborhood public school. Her disability left her, as described by the
court proceedings, unable to communicate through speech, sign language or other alternative
communication system, some visual impairment and mobility impaired and mainly uses a
wheelchair, (Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, 1997, para. 2). The parents requested
and the school agreed to a trial period for Emily in a regular classroom with an EA. At the end
of the trial period, the school and the IPRC recommended that Emily enroll in a special needs
The Eaton family pursued litigation and eventually, in 1997, the Supreme Court of
Canada determined that the Brant County Board of Education did not discriminate against Emily
or exclude her from the right to an appropriate education. The judge explained that the court had
to consider the best interests of the disabled child, and when the child cannot speak for his or
herself, as in Emilys case, the interests of that child are often advocated by the parents. The
court noted that this does not necessarily mean that the parents are speaking in the best interests
of that child. The Court determined that adapting a curriculum to suit the needs of Emily, would
make the integration artificial and end up [isolating] her in a disserving and potentially insidious
way, (Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, 1997, s.17). For that reason, the court sided
with the Special Education Appeal Boards decision to remove Emily from the regular classroom
and concluded that the provision of a parallel curriculum for exceptional children when in
regular class can be beneficial only when it is realistically parallel but may very well have the
effect to isolating the child when it is not so. (Sheppard, G., 2015, pp 1-2).
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 6
Hewko v. B.C. and the Board of School Trustees of School District No. 34
Darren Hewko was diagnosed with autism which resulted in no receptive language and
[an inability to] respond to verbal instructions, (Haykowsky, T. n.d., para. 2) prior to starting
school. He attended his neighbourhood public school in Kindergarten while receiving therapy
from a home-based therapist who was trained in Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI), a
teaching method proven to be effective for Darren. For one month of Kindergarten, Darren
received support from a district appointed TA who was not trained in IBI therapy. Darren
continued in his neighborhood school for the remainder of his Kindergarten and grade 1 year but
in May, 2003, was recommended by the School District, to attend a different school, in a
Resource room, where a qualified Special Ed. teacher and TA could support Darrens
programming needs.
Darrens parents wanted the IBI therapy to continue for Darren and requested Darrens
home-based therapist to serve as Darrens TA in the new school as the Special Ed. Teacher and
TA were not adequately trained in the IBI therapy despite a 5 day intensive course on autism and
IBI therapy. The school district did not support the parents request and the parents filed a
lawsuit against the School District and the Province of BC for discrimination based on disability
public school.
The Court determined that neither the Province nor the School District acted in a
discriminatory manner as the District made reasonable attempts to provide the best available
teaching staff for the child in the school, (Haykowsky, T. n.d., School Boards Duties).
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7
Jeffery Moore attended public school until grade 2 when the school determined that it
could not provide the intensive remediation and appropriate programming to support Jefferys
learning with severe dyslexia. The district psychologist recommended that Jeffery attend the
Diagnostic Center, a facility that could provide the interventions for students with severe
learning disabilities. Jeffery attended the Diagnostic Center until the District closed it. At that
time, the Moore family was advised to enroll Jeffery in a private institution because no other
facility in the District could provide the programming that he required. At this time, the Moore
The Tribunal determined that the Province of BC and the School District acted
discriminatory towards Jeffery and the ruling ordered that the Moore family be reimbursed for
the tuition for Jeffery to attend the private school. The court referenced that under The Charter
and the B.C. Human Rights Code, all individuals are entitled to a meaningful education. The
Tribunals decision had to consider whether the education that Jeffery received, and was
subsequently denied, was a breach of the access to meaningful education. The Tribunal ruled
that because it was recognized that Jeffery required the intensive interventions in order to learn,
which couldnt be provided by the District after the Diagnostic Center was close, justified the
Tribunals conclusion that the failure of the District to meet Js educational needs
constituted prima facie discrimination. (Moore v. British Columbia, 2012). The District
maintained that the closing of the Diagnostic Center was justified as financial cuts made it
difficult to maintain the center, but the Tribunal ruled that budgetary cuts were made
disproportionately to special needs programs and that the District did not investigate alternative
R.B. is a male student who attended Open Roads Public School in the Keewatin-Patricia
District School Board from Junior Kindergarten to grade 3. He was diagnosed with mild
developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD NOS) and the apparent Tic Disorder,
(R.B. vs Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, 2013, s.5) after his mother, S.F. filed an
application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) claiming her son was discriminated
During R.Bs grade 2 school year in 2011-2012, S.F. was informed by the school that
R.B.s EA support in the classroom would be reduced from full-time to half-time because of the
progress that had been made in the previous grade, despite full-time support recommended in
R.B.s medical assessments. S.F. met with the council of IPRC in 2011 to advocate for full time
EA support. The request was denied but the IPRC recommended indirect support be provided by
the Special Education Resource Teacher (SERT) to avoid the behavioural problems,
inattentiveness, and lack of progress, (Young, S., 2014, para. 5) that had been observed in the
past with insufficient EA support. Throughout the grade 2 school year, E.A. support was
increased by 100 minutes per day, which was not communicated to the family of R.B.
S.F. continued to advocate that programming was inadequate for her son, that she was
left out of the decisions and development of R.B.s IEP, that R.B. was subjected to bullying from
his peers, which the school failed to address, and that EAs were using unreasonable force upon
R.B, which was reported to police when the school did not respond to the allegations. R.B. was
withdrawn from school in May, 2012 for medical reasons related to anxiety and fear of
Board, 2013, s.6), a behavioural plan, continued communication and collaboration between the
family and the school on R.Bs progress and programming including regular contact between
R.B. was out of school for four months and was receiving instruction for three hours per
week, deemed inadequate by R.Bs counsellor and psychologist. The HRTO determined that
R.B. must transition back into school gradually and plans would be in place by February 19,
2013. The HRTO referred to the case of Moore vs. BC and determined that meaningful access
Related Literature
Jennifer Katz, teacher, professor, and author, advocates for total inclusion for the benefit
of all learners in a regular classroom. She describes an inclusive space where all students are
placed in their home schools, and services are delivered in the classrooms and in the school.
The classroom teacher takes primary responsibility for all students enrolled in the class. (Katz,
n.d., The Goal: Academic & Social Inclusion para. 4). The premise for her 3-Block Model
approach is to recognize diversity within a classroom and embrace individual differences and
strengths to develop respectful, educated youth in all schools. Katz indicates that inclusive
classrooms benefit students with disabilities in terms of literacy, numeracy, and life skills, and
she attributes inclusive learning environments as having similar effects on regular students.
Critical Analysis
The culture surrounding special education is evolving. While the how of appropriate
special educational programming has always been an issue of debate, increased neurological
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 10
understanding, research on the effects of isolation and inclusion, and a better informed public on
human and charter rights, makes integration of exceptional children commonplace in schools and
courtrooms. Until recently, however, the Supreme Court of Canada did not typically rule in
favour of families pursuing litigation for discrimination against their disabled children in terms
of inclusion. The landmark case of Moore v. BC has set a precedence when it comes to inclusive
appropriate programming.
What has made the Moore v. BC case significant is the Courts definition of what
meaningful access to education means. Simply being in a regular classroom does not imply
equal access for every learner. Exceptional learners do not necessarily need equality, but equity
in the form of adequate adaptations, and sometimes that includes appropriate setting. Equitable
access without discrimination means that special needs cases must be carefully considered with a
team of trained educators who consider the interests of the child rather than the adults which are
Many individuals and organizations believe that full integration and inclusion is best and,
as Dr. Katzs research has pointed out, many exceptional children benefit socially and
academically from their placement in a regular classroom as do the other children in the class.
With proper teacher training, exceptional children do not have to be more work for a teacher
either. It is clear in education, however, that there is never a one size fits all program, which is
precisely what Katzs 3-Block Model, the Universal Design for Learning, and best practice in
education is based upon: differentiating programming in the best interests of the students. This
was the basis for the ruling in the Eaton v. Brant County case. Parallel learning is not the same
as inclusion, and can be a determinant to students; something that Katz fails to acknowledge.
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11
Federal and provincial funding determines the availability of supports for exceptional
children in regular classrooms, but also specialized programs, such as the Diagnostic Center that
was referenced in Moore v. BC. Politics and budgets change, which affects funding availability
and criteria and as a result, the support for exceptional children in regular or specialized
programs may be in jeopardy. In Manitoba, many students are denied funding because they do
not present with behavioural problems, their IQ score falls in the gray area, or there is evidence
Keewatin-Patricia School District can mean the difference between a student remaining in
school or not. When those students are in their formidable years of developing the literacy and
numeracy skills that they will depend on for the rest of their lives, inadequate funding and lack of
suitable support means children are being denied their right to access education. In this situation,
The Moore vs. BC case has set a precedent for present and future cases regarding
appropriate programming to meet the needs of exceptional children. For Jeffery Moore, the
ruling is inconsequential. He is no longer in the public school system, and although his family
received a monetary award, it does not make up for the missed educational opportunity. The
Supreme Court ruling on prima facie discrimination in education will no doubt have huge
implications for administrators and Student Services teams who develop programming for
special needs students. Integration in a regular classroom and parallel instruction is not enough
for all students to meaningfully and equitably access to the curriculum. It is likely that
provincial policies will be amended to ensure that consideration of the best interests of the child,
implementing inclusive programming will shift from a last resort to satisfy vocal childrens
advocates to mainstream programming in all public schools. These four Canadian cases further
illustrate the need for consistent standards and procedures for careful planning and collaboration
with qualified teachers, administrators, parents, and when appropriate, the students. Parental
Standards for Student Services indicates that at each stages of planning and implementation
IEPs, parental involvement is necessary and an integral part of the process (Manitoba Education,
Citizenship, and Youth, 2006, p. 15). Maintaining a supportive relationship between the family
and the school is important to supporting a students right to learn. From a legal standpoint,
schools are not mandated to co-operate with families but the Tribunal noted in the case of R.B. v
Keewatin-Patricia School Board, that the damaged relationship between S.F. and the school
likely negatively impacted the way R.B. was treated at the school (Young, S., 2014, Applications
The integration of special needs children is often beneficial to all students, but in some
cases it is not ideal. The ruling in Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, determined exactly
that. It is implicit that schools require and provide continued training for teachers and support
staff to align instructional and supportive practices with research-based effective methodology.
When a school is equipped with well qualified teachers and trained support staff to accommodate
the needs of a diverse group of students in their care, adequate educational opportunities can be
available to all students in an integrated setting. Without that on-going training, inclusion
becomes nothing more than parallel teaching, which is not necessarily beneficial to students and
Although political leadership may change, federally and provincially, it is unlikely that
the challenge of financing education adequately will be any different in the future than it has
been in the past. Legally, schools are required to provide adequate programming despite the
political climate or the budgetary constraints. With the ruling in Moore v. BC, it has become
more important for Canadian schools to have appropriate programs in place in order to be legally
accountable. This means that when funding is cut, as it inevitably will be, School Boards and
administrators must be creative in managing resources in order to meet the primary obligation of
existing: educating all students. This can be achieved by strategically training and re-training
staff to be able to offer appropriate interventions and programming for students at the extreme
ends of the learning spectrum. Katzs Universal Design for Learning is widely recognized as a
means for planning for differentiation and in Mountain View School Division, has been adopted
as the model for effective planning and teaching for diversity within the student population,
Conclusion
The legal cases of Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, and Hewko v. BC have
preceded, and perhaps primed the Canadian justice system, for the landmark Moore vs. BC
ruling. The subsequent case of R.B. v Keewatin-Patricia School Division demonstrates the shift
longer as simple as just segregation or integration for schools, parents, or the courts, but rather a
series of conversations about the best interest of the child as the Supreme Court ruled in Eaton v.
Brant County Board of Education. Ensuring that all children have meaningful access to the
decisions must be individual, must involve the families, and must be monitored and evaluated.
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 14
Financial constraints and resource availability are real issues that plague school divisions,
education, as noted by Justice Rosalie Sliberman Abella, is not a dispensable luxuryit is the
ramp that provides access to the statutory commitment to education, for all children. (Bach,
2012)
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15
References
Bach, M. (November 9, 2012). Victory at the supreme court of Canada on the right to educate.
http://www.inclusionbc.org/sites/default/files/PressRelease_Moore_CACL.pdf
BC Ministry of Education. (1996). School act: Part 2 students and parents. Retrieved from
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20S%20--/05_School
%20Act%20[RSBC%201996]%20c.%20412/00_Act/96412_02.xml#section2
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/special_ed_policy_manual.pdf
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html
Council of Canadians with Disabilities. (n.d.) The Moore case: Summary of key points. Retrieved
Key-Findings-9Nov2012
Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education. Supreme Court of Canada. (1997). Retrieved from
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1471/index.do
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2006/2006bcsc1638/2006bcsc1638.html
Katz, J. (n.d.) What is universal design for learning (UDL)? Retrieved 28 March, 2016 from
http://www.threeblockmodel.com/udl-for-parents.html
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 16
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/specedu/aep/pdf/Standards_for_Student_Services.pdf
Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth. (October 25, 2005). Appropriate educational
regs.php?reg=155/2005
Moore v. British Columbia. Supreme Court of Canada. (2012). Retrieved from https://scc-
csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (n.d.) The opportunity to succeed: Achieving barrier-free
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/opportunity-succeed-achieving-barrier-free-education-students-
disabilities/elementary-and-secondary-education#fnB14
R.B v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. (2013).
content/uploads/2015/05/NOE.Special-Education-and-the-Charter-No-Presumption-in-
Favour-of-Integration.pdf
Towle, H. (2015). Disability and inclusion in Canadian education. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National
%20Office/2015/07/Disability_and_Inclusion_in_Education.pdf
THE SHIFTING LEAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 17
Young, S. February 16, 2014. Human rights tribunal rules that school board denied student
meaningful access to education. Ottawa, ON: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. Retrieved 28
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/293516/trials+appeals+compensation/Human+Rights+
Tribunal+Rules+That+School+Board+Denied+Student+Meaningful+Access+To+Educati
on