Moore v. British Columbia: A Good IDEA?

While the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Moore v. British Columbia was concerned with the accommodation of disability in the public school system, the authors argue that the spectre of private school funding looms over the judgment. Given the political consensus supporting public schools in Canada, several substantive and remedial elements of the Moore decision should be viewed in a cautionary light. A standard of accommodation that is rooted in comparison to the services provided by better-resourced and less diverse private schools may not be attainable by or appropriate for public schools, and should the refore be eschewed as a standard of accommodation in analyzing equal access to public school education. at the remedial stage, the awarding of compensation to Jeffrey Moore’s parents for a decade’s worth of private school tuition risks transforming human rights tribunals into purveyors of private school vouchers, an American education policy rightfully rejected by Canadian legislatures. Human rights remedies should be concerned with improving the universally accessible public school system for the benefit of all students with disabilities instead of siphoning scarce resources towards a select few students able to attend private schools. The authors argue that the Supreme Court of Canada was right to reject the Human Rights Tribunal’s systemic remedies which would have, inter alia, shifted responsibility for individual special education programs from the local school boards to the Ministry of Education by mandating greater centralization at the Ministry level of the design, delivery and oversight of individual students’ special education programs. This role is best undertaken at the local level by teachers and specialized board personnel who are in the unique position to know a student’s individual needs and abilities, and the circumstances and resources of the particular board. Concern is raised that Human Rights Tribunals can impose such broad systemic remedies affecting major public policy issues like education funding and centralization subject only to review on the standard of reasonableness

Keeping the Scale of Justice Balanced – Québec Justices of the Peace and Judicial Independence

Protecting judicial independence is a constitutional imperative that requires striking a careful balance between safeguarding the role of judges and courts and permitting governments to carry out their constitutional responsibilities with respect to the administration of justice. On the one hand, public confidence in the administration of justice requires robust assurances that judges are sufficiently independent from the Executive and Legislature that they need not fear reprisals or expect rewards if they judge as the law requires without fear or favour. On the other hand, the elected branches of government are responsible to the people to ensure that judicial misconduct is dealt with appropriately, that justice is effectively administered, including through the “constitution, maintenance and organization” of courts, and that public finances are managed in a fair and responsible manner

Keeping the Scale of Justice Balanced – Québec Justices of the Peace and Judicial Independence

Protecting judicial independence is a constitutional imperative that requires striking a careful balance between safeguarding the role of judges and courts and permitting governments to carry out their constitutional responsibilities with respect to the administration of justice. On the one hand, public confidence in the administration of justice requires robust assurances that judges are sufficiently independent from the Executive and Legislature that they need not fear reprisals or expect rewards if they judge as the law requires without fear or favour. On the other hand, the elected branches of government are responsible to the people to ensure that judicial misconduct is dealt with appropriately, that justice is effectively administered, including through the “constitution, maintenance and organization” of courts, and that public finances are managed in a fair and responsible manner

Moore v. British Columbia: A Good IDEA?

While the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Moore v. British Columbia was concerned with the accommodation of disability in the public school system, the authors argue that the spectre of private school funding looms over the judgment. Given the political consensus supporting public schools in Canada, several substantive and remedial elements of the Moore decision should be viewed in a cautionary light. A standard of accommodation that is rooted in comparison to the services provided by better-resourced and less diverse private schools may not be attainable by or appropriate for public schools, and should the refore be eschewed as a standard of accommodation in analyzing equal access to public school education. at the remedial stage, the awarding of compensation to Jeffrey Moore’s parents for a decade’s worth of private school tuition risks transforming human rights tribunals into purveyors of private school vouchers, an American education policy rightfully rejected by Canadian legislatures. Human rights remedies should be concerned with improving the universally accessible public school system for the benefit of all students with disabilities instead of siphoning scarce resources towards a select few students able to attend private schools. The authors argue that the Supreme Court of Canada was right to reject the Human Rights Tribunal’s systemic remedies which would have, inter alia, shifted responsibility for individual special education programs from the local school boards to the Ministry of Education by mandating greater centralization at the Ministry level of the design, delivery and oversight of individual students’ special education programs. This role is best undertaken at the local level by teachers and specialized board personnel who are in the unique position to know a student’s individual needs and abilities, and the circumstances and resources of the particular board. Concern is raised that Human Rights Tribunals can impose such broad systemic remedies affecting major public policy issues like education funding and centralization subject only to review on the standard of reasonableness