5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Rights of the Child (6:VI)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Rights of the Child (6:VI) (view source)
Revision as of 04:17, 23 August 2023
, 04:17, 23 August 2023no edit summary
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July | {{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July 26, 2023}} | ||
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}} | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}} | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
=== 6. Other Concerns === | === 6. Other Concerns === | ||
The ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'' states that public schools must be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles (s 76(1)), meaning they cannot be religiously affiliated.. | The ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'' states that public schools must be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles (s 76(1)), meaning they cannot be religiously affiliated. For a case that applies s 76(1) please see [https://canlii.ca/t/jtfql Servatius v Alberni School District No. 70,] 2022 BCCA 421. In this case, a mother claimed that her children’s school had violated their religious freedom after an elder performed a smudging demonstration, and a hoop dancer said a prayer while performing at the children’s school assembly. The BC Court of Appeal ruled that the demonstrations were not religious ceremonies but public demonstrations for the purposes of building community and teaching students about Indigenous culture, practices recommended by Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). | ||
''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore v British Columbia (Education)]'', 2012 SCC 61 at para 36 determined that the BC government had discriminated against a dyslexic boy when it cut the special needs program during a financial crisis. The Supreme Court of Canada found that he was denied a service customarily available to the public. The service denied was meaningful access to education generally, not specific access to a special needs program. Discrimination was found because the cuts disproportionately affected special needs programs and there was no evidence that the BC government considered other options. | ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore v British Columbia (Education)]'', 2012 SCC 61 at para 36 determined that the BC government had discriminated against a dyslexic boy when it cut the special needs program during a financial crisis. The Supreme Court of Canada found that he was denied a service customarily available to the public. The service denied was meaningful access to education generally, not specific access to a special needs program. Discrimination was found because the cuts disproportionately affected special needs programs and there was no evidence that the BC government considered other options. | ||
Parents are jointly and severally liable for intentional or negligent damage to school property caused by their children (s 10). There is no action against a school board or its employees unless the actionable conduct included dishonesty, gross negligence, malicious or wilful misconduct, or the cause of action is libel or slander (s 94(2)). Note section 94 limits liability, but does not absolve a board from vicarious liability. | Parents are jointly and severally liable for intentional or negligent damage to school property caused by their children (s 10 of the School Act). Please see [https://canlii.ca/t/gfv2m Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District No. 68 v. Dean] 2015 BCSC 11 for an example of parents being held liable for the negligent destruction of school property by their son. In this case, a 14-year-old student attached their friend’s padlock to the head of an overhead sprinkler in their school, which caused the entire sprinkler system to become activated, resulting in extensive damage to the school. Judgement was granted against the parents for $48,630.47 worth of damage. | ||
There is no action against a school board or its employees unless the actionable conduct included dishonesty, gross negligence, malicious or wilful misconduct, or the cause of action is libel or slander (s 94(2)). Note section 94 limits liability, but does not absolve a board from vicarious liability. | |||
Any person who believes a child, whether registered or not, is not enrolled in an educational program can make a report to the superintendent of schools (s 14(1)). An action lies against that person only if the report is made maliciously (s 14(3)). | Any person who believes a child, whether registered or not, is not enrolled in an educational program can make a report to the superintendent of schools (s 14(1)). An action lies against that person only if the report is made maliciously (s 14(3)). | ||
School boards have a duty to provide an educational environment that is free from discriminatory harassment. This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 20, 2005, when it dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a BC Human Rights Tribunal finding of discrimination against a BC school board relating to the homophobic harassment of one of its students (see ''[https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-l-csc-a/en/item/12398/index.do North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran]'', [2005] SCCA No 260 and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran], 2005 BCCA 201 at paras 91–102). Note that while the student was found to have been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, it was irrelevant whether he identified himself as homosexual, or whether his harassers knew or believed him to be homosexual. | School boards have a duty to provide an educational environment that is free from discriminatory harassment. This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 20, 2005, when it dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a BC Human Rights Tribunal finding of discrimination against a BC school board relating to the homophobic harassment of one of its students (see ''[https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-l-csc-a/en/item/12398/index.do North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran]'', [2005] SCCA No 260 and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran], 2005 BCCA 201 at paras 91–102). Note that while the student was found to have been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, it was irrelevant whether he identified himself as homosexual, or whether his harassers knew or believed him to be homosexual. | ||
The Ministry of Education has developed the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) 123 initiative, to guide educators on instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity. The aim of this initiative is to foster inclusion and respect for students who, because of their identity or expression, may face discrimination while attending school. In [https://canlii.ca/t/jx8k0 Hansman v. Neufeld,] 2023 SCC 14, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the conflict between freedom of expression and the protection of one’s reputation in the context of a critique of SOGI. In this case, Mr. Neufeld, a public school board trustee, made controversial online posts criticizing SOGI. Mr. Hansman, a gay man and teacher, was prominent amongst the dissenting voices and made statements to the media regarding his opposition to Mr. Neufeld’s views. Mr. Neufeld subsequently filed a defamation suit against Mr. Hansman. The SCC ruled in favour of Mr. Hansman, writing that “Not only does protecting Mr. Hansman’s expression preserve free debate on matters of public interest, it also promotes equality, another fundamental democratic value” (para 9). In this case, the SCC acknowledged that transgender and other 2SLGBTQ+ youth are especially vulnerable to expression like Mr. Neufeld’s that reduces their “worth and dignity in the eyes of society and questions their very identity” (para 9). | |||
== B. Medical Attention == | == B. Medical Attention == | ||
| Line 52: | Line 56: | ||
=== 2. Consent to Treatment === | === 2. Consent to Treatment === | ||
In Canadian case law, the courts have found that a minor can consent to treatment as a “mature minor” if that particular person has the mental capacity to understand the nature and risks of that particular treatment (see ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 223, s 17). A minor, who is living away from home, working, or married, may be found to be autonomous, and free from parental control, and thus capable of consenting to or refusing treatment on their own behalf. | In Canadian case law, the courts have found that a minor can consent to treatment as a “mature minor” if that particular person has the mental capacity to understand the nature and risks of that particular treatment (see the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 223, s 17). A minor, who is living away from home, working, or married, may be found to be autonomous, and free from parental control, and thus capable of consenting to or refusing treatment on their own behalf. | ||
Under the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', (s 17), a minor can consent to surgical, medical, mental, or dental treatment without the agreement of their parents, so long as the health care provider has: | Under the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', (s 17), a minor can consent to surgical, medical, mental, or dental treatment without the agreement of their parents, so long as the health care provider has: | ||
