A dad’s claim that bullying at a Richmond day camp created an “unsafe environment” for his child was rejected by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT).
The father, whose young child attended a day camp for six to 10-year-olds in 2022, requested the city reimburse him for five weeks of day camp fees, totalling $1,008. The father was referred to as WC in the CRT resolution to protect his child’s identity.
WC alleged the City of Richmond breached a contract with him by failing to ask his child’s alleged bullies to take time off from day camp and said the staff was negligent in preventing the bullying.
The City of Richmond denied that it had a contract with WC, claiming the day camp was operated by the Richmond City Centre Community Association (CCCA), an “independent contractor” with its own staff that used the city’s registration system.
This argument was rejected by CRT adjudicator Megan Stewart, who decided “an objective, reasonable bystander would have concluded WC and the City intended to contract” for day camp services advertised on the city’s website.
Stewart was persuaded by evidence such as the booking being made on the city’s website, and communications including receipts and the registration confirmation were provided through the city and did not mention CCCA.
“Though the day camp welcome letter was on CCCA letterhead, it referenced the City and “Community Associations” being proud of the quality programming ‘we are able to offer,’” Stewart wrote.
No evidence of ‘sustained bullying campaign’ against child
According to WC, his child had tried to report a list of incidents with other children including name-calling, having their arts and crafts taken away, having punches thrown toward their face and being hit and pushed.
Staff allegedly "did not intervene and did not require the children against whom the allegations were raised to take a ‘rest day,’” Stewart wrote.
Under the city’s code of conduct for day camps, participants whose behaviour results in unsafe environments for others are asked to take one rest day away from the program.
WC added that his child had to attend counselling sessions to “deal with anxiety and trust issues following their day camp experience,” but did not provide any evidence of attending those sessions.
However, notes from day camp leaders indicated that staff had spoken to children about their behaviours and minimized “negative interaction” between the children by putting them on the same teams for gym games, for example.
One camp leader said WC’s child “generally seemed happy at day camp.”
Stewart concluded there was “no evidence of a sustained bullying campaign against” WC’s child and most incidents “appear to have been unrelated, one-off occurrences.” She added that staff responded proportionately to the incidents.
There was also no evidence of any physical injuries or mental distress showing the child was “unwilling or unable to participate” in the day camp after the incidents.
“I acknowledge it is upsetting for parents to hear from their child about negative interactions with other children,” Stewart wrote.
“However, I cannot conclude the incidents described above objectively created an unsafe environment.”
WC’s claim was dismissed and he will not be reimbursed for his CRT fees.
