Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group C

Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61
Jeffrey Moore suffered from a severe learning disability, dyslexia, and required intensive remedial instruction. Jeffrey was receiving assistance at a local diagnostic center which was administered by the school board, until budgetary concerns forced the school district to close the center. After the cutbacks, it was strongly recommended that Jeffrey was enrolled in a private school and his parents paid the necessary tuition. Jeffrey's father, Frederick Moore, subsequently filed a human rights complaint against both the School District and the British Columbia Ministry of Education claiming violation of section 8 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, on the grounds that Jeffrey had been denied a 'service' customarily available to the public.

Judicial History
At the Tribunal stage, the chair found that there was both individual and systemic discrimination against Jeffrey by virtue of recognizing that remedial assistance to ensure that Jeffrey received a reasonable standard of education. The Tribunal found there was agreement by experts about the long-term consequences for students with unremediated learning disabilities.

""Findings of Discrimination by the District"" Discrimination by the District was found in the underfunding over the severe learning disabilities program and the closing of the Diagnostic Centre. The Tribunal found that although the District had financial constraints, there was no evidence that the District considered any alternatives for the effected students before cutting services.

""Findings of Discrimination by the Province"" The Tribunal identified four problems with the province's special education programs:

1. High incidence/low cost cap The Tribunal found that the low cost outlay would have benefited a great many people.

2. The underfunding of the District

3. Failure to ensure that necessary services were mandatory

4. Failure to monitor the activities of the District

Based on these finding, the Tribunal ordered reimbursement for costs related to Jeffrey's enrollment at private school, as well as, $10,000.00 in damages for pain and suffering.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia allowed for application for judicial review. It was determined at judicial review that Jeffrey's situation was comparable to other special needs candidates and not to the general population. This failure to properly identify and compare Jeffrey to the appropriate comparator group skewed the discrimination analysis. The Tribunal decision was set aside.

The judicial review decision was appealed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the decision that the correct comparator group was other special needs students, dismissing the appeal. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decisions at the trial and appeal levels and upheld the Tribunal decision. The District failed to provide proper services for special needs student in accordance with the School Act and its related policies.

-still funding other programs - Outdoor school - cannot put that above special needs students - 'service' in s8 means education generally not special needs education - appropriate comparator group is all students not special needs students

It is accepted that students with disabilities require special accommodation in order for them to benefit from the education system. Without such special education, the disabled are unable to receive e

Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_C/Natural_Law

Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_C/Positivism

Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_C/Separation_Thesis

Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_C/System_Of_Rights

Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_C/Liberty-Paternalism

Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_C/Law_As_Efficiency

Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_C/Feminist_Jurisprudence

Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_C/Critical_Legal_Studies_Critical_Race_Theory