Susan Serena

The complainant, who is legally and clinically blind, alleged discrimination in the provision of educational services by a private career college.

He required specially outfitted computer equipment and course materials in alternate formats to enrol.

The college failed to take meaningful steps to arrange this accommodation and subsequently denied his request to defer his enrolment date based on a strict one-deferral-only policy.

The Tribunal found that the college discriminated against the complainant by failing to accommodate his disability to the point of undue hardship.

The college was ordered to pay $12,500 in general damages and implement public interest remedies.

The complaint against the individual admissions director was dismissed as he was acting within the scope of his employment.

In a human rights complaint, the Tribunal removed three personal respondents on consent after the corporate respondent agreed to accept liability for their actions as employees under s. 45(1) of the Code.

A fourth personal respondent, Brandt, sought to be removed on the same terms, but the corporate respondent refused to concede he was an employee.

The Tribunal declined to remove Brandt at this stage.

The Tribunal also denied Brandt's request to adjourn upcoming hearing dates due to a work conflict, noting he had received ample notice.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because its advisor could not locate a hotel room in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent of the other parties.

Additionally, the Commission requested an order directing the respondents to comply with a prior document production order.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the outstanding documents by May 11, 2006, warning that failure to do so could result in them being barred from introducing undisclosed documents under Rule 48.