Jeffrey Moore V British Columbia Case Analysis

Introduction
This paper analyses the legal aspects influencing education provision in Canada. It focuses primarily on issues concerning learning disability and special education. The case used to analyze the legal aspects is the Jeffrey Moore Vs. British Columbia case that was issued a final ruling by Canada’s Supreme Court in 2012. The ruling serves as a landmark given that it serves a precedent for related cases of learning disability. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jeffrey Moore declaring that education is not “a dispensable luxury” based on the School Act enacted in British Columbia (Supreme Court of Canada, 2012). Hence, Jeffrey should not have been discriminated based on his learning disability from a public school. As shall be seen, the Moore Vs. British Columbia case touches on other facets such as human rights, bias and prohibitive grounds in areas of adequate accommodation.
2.0 Legal Issue to be Considered

The Moore Vs.

British Columbia case presents specific issues related to special education provided in public schools and well as funding. It is worth noting that Jeffrey’s father decided to sue the public school he attended initially because they had eliminated a special program for student with learning disability after the Provincial Government cut back the education funding. When the school’s administration told Jeffrey’s parents that the type of remedial education can only be provided in a private school, his parents had to move him to one. This action by the school administration is discriminatory because it prevents a student from receiving education, which is universal in nature meaning that all Canadian children are entitled (EduCanada, 2017). More so in a public institution mandated to offer the

same.
It is also worth noting that all the provinces and territories of Canada enacted to provide special education and needs in public schools. Ghosh and Ray (1991) note that in the late 80s, all the ten provinces of Canada amended their laws to provide education for the physically disabled and children with cognitive disability in public schools. This action by the Provincial Governments was in line with the provision of a universal education system that includes all children. As such, all public schools are meant to provide remedial assistance to student with physical and mental disabilities in their school. This, however, was not the case with Jeffrey who suffers from severe Dyslexia – a “continuum of difficulties in learning to read, write and spell, which persists despite the provision of appropriate learning opportunities” (Reid, 2016). The definition also notes that the challenges are evidenced in a person’s cognitive capacity and may not affect other areas of life (Reid, 2016). Based on this definition, it is apparent that dyslexia is mental disability and should be treated as a special case in public schools.
The third legal issue that emerges is the violation of human rights. Although the issue touches on discrimination due to prejudicial and bias behaviour against a person with a mental disability, it also touches on human rights. This is because it infringes a right that belong to each person, namely education. Canada’s charter upholds inclusive education all irrespective of race, religion or disability, ensuring equal treatment (Armstrong, 1999). But when Jeffrey’s school stopped providing the special program that he attended, they not only discriminated him for his mental disability, but also infringed his rights to education. When his father sues the school and province, he noted that the school denied his son a service that is routinely accorded to the public (Supreme Court of Canada, 2012).