Following the June 10–11 incident involving Simon, Ashley received a phone call from school administration. I was not contacted, despite:
- being a custodial parent,
- being listed in the Student Information System,
- having previously requested inclusion in all communication,
- having disclosed communication‑related disabilities,
- and having already raised concerns about exclusion.
The administrative decision to contact only Ashley was described as a “preference” rather than a policy requirement.
This indicates a systemic anomaly in the communication workflow:
- The school’s communication protocol did not treat both custodial parents as equal recipients.
- The Student Information System’s guardian‑contact fields were not used consistently.
- The communication log established for Simon was not referenced.
- The administrator’s personal communication preference superseded statutory and procedural obligations.
- No accessibility‑aligned communication method was used, despite disability disclosure.
The system behaved as though one parent’s inclusion was optional, even after explicit requests for equal communication.
Because the school contacted only Ashley:
- I was excluded from a discussion about my son’s wellbeing and safety.
- Ashley felt pressured into a conversation she did not intend to have without me present.
- The exclusion reinforced a pattern of communication gaps that had already begun two days earlier.
- My disability‑related communication needs were disregarded, creating an accessibility barrier.
- The school’s explanation — that exclusion was simply a “preference” — signaled that procedural consistency was not being followed.
- This incident became the catalyst for my first formal human‑rights complaint, as the exclusion appeared to be based on gender and disability‑related communication differences.
- The trust between our family and the school’s communication processes was further eroded.
This was the moment Ashley and I realized that communication exclusion was not accidental — it was systemic.
Education Act (Ontario)
- s. 265(1)(m) — Duty to give “assiduous attention to the health and comfort of pupils.”
- Excluding a custodial parent from safety‑related communication undermines this duty.
- s. 265(1)(j) — Duty to maintain proper order and discipline.
- Communication with all custodial parents is part of orderly school administration.
Ontario Human Rights Code
- s. 1, s. 5 — Equal treatment in services, including education.
- Excluding a parent with disclosed disabilities may constitute adverse impact discrimination.
- Disability and gender‑based adverse impact
- Communication exclusion can disproportionately affect disabled parents and fathers.
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)
- Information & Communications Standard
- Requires accessible communication practices for individuals with disabilities.
- Failure to use email (the accessible method requested) created a barrier.
Board Communication Protocols
- Require consistent communication with all custodial parents listed in the Student Information System.
- Personal “preferences” cannot override documented parental communication requests.
Board Equity & Inclusion Policies
- Require equitable treatment of all parents regardless of gender or disability.
- Communication exclusion contradicts these principles.
Professional Standards (Ontario College of Teachers)
- Ethical Standard of Care — Requires prioritizing student wellbeing through transparent communication.
- Professional Practice — Requires adherence to board policies and consistent communication.
- Professional Knowledge — Requires understanding and applying communication protocols correctly.