The Court held that the relevant service under the Human Rights Code was education generally, not a segregated special-education comparator class.
It found prima facie discrimination where a student with severe dyslexia was denied meaningful access to education after the closure of a diagnostic remediation centre and inadequate replacement supports.
The District failed to justify its conduct because it did not properly assess reasonable alternatives before cutting essential services.
The discrimination finding and individual compensation remedies were restored against the District, while broader systemic orders and provincial liability were set aside.
