Dr. Donna Ouchterlony

The University of Waterloo sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision ordering it to implement a Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) pilot project as a systemic remedy for discriminating against an applicant with learning disabilities.

The University argued the Tribunal improperly relied on inadmissible expert evidence and that the remedy violated its institutional autonomy over admissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable.

The Court held that the Tribunal did not improperly rely on inadmissible expert opinion and that the PLAR pilot project was a tailored, proportional remedy that respected the University's academic standards while addressing the specific discrimination suffered by the respondent.

The respondent applied to the University of Waterloo as a transfer student but did not meet the academic standards due to prior grades affected by undiagnosed disabilities.

The University's Admissions Committee rejected his application based solely on those unaccommodated grades.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the University met its duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court set aside the HRTO decision as unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO decision was unreasonable, as the University could not rely solely on unaccommodated grades to demonstrate reasonable accommodation, but varied the remedy to remit the matter back to the HRTO rather than the Admissions Committee.

The applicant, a survivor of institutional child abuse with a traumatic brain injury and PTSD, applied for admission to the University of Waterloo.

The university rejected his application based on poor grades he had obtained 13 years earlier at another institution, before his disabilities were diagnosed and accommodated.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the university had fulfilled its duty to accommodate.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court set aside the HRTO's decision, holding that the university discriminated against the applicant by relying on unaccommodated grades and failed to establish that assessing his application without those grades would cause undue hardship.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the claimant was catastrophically impaired due to a crack cocaine addiction caused by a motor vehicle accident, and awarding ongoing income replacement and attendant care benefits.

The insurer argued that the arbitrator erred in finding catastrophic impairment under the mental/behavioural disorder criteria when the claimant failed the whole person impairment criteria, erred in finding causation, and erred in awarding attendant care benefits that were not actually incurred.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the catastrophic impairment definitions are alternative, that the addiction was a direct consequence of the accident injuries, and that an insurer cannot rely on a claimant's inability to incur expenses when the insurer has denied the claim.

The applicant was injured in a snowmobile accident and sought statutory accident benefits from his insurer.

He claimed housing expenses for winter accommodation on the mainland, a new boat and snowmobile as rehabilitation benefits, and income replacement benefits exceeding the $400 weekly maximum based on business losses.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for housing expenses, finding it was covered by a prior settlement regarding relocation.

The arbitrator granted the claim for a new boat and snowmobile, accepting medical evidence that they were necessary to reduce impact on the applicant's back and allow him to maintain his business.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for enhanced income replacement benefits, ruling that the statutory scheme caps benefits at $400 and compensates for actual income loss, not lost economic opportunity or potential profits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them, claiming she could return to her pre-accident work as a piecework sewing machine operator.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's permanent hand injury prevented her from performing the rapid, repetitive movements required for her job, entitling her to ongoing benefits.

The arbitrator also determined that the applicant was an employee rather than an independent contractor, calculating her benefits based on a weekly salary of $275.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's initial termination was based on reasonable medical evidence.