Emma Arenson v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., 2009 HRTO 1767

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Emma Arenson Applicant

-and-

Law School Admission Council, Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: October 23, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1767 Indexed as: Arenson v. Law School Admission Council

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s request for early dismissal of the Application.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on July 16, 2009, which alleges that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to services, goods and facilities because of her disability. Specifically, she alleges that the respondent refused to fully grant her request for accommodation of her disability-related needs during the writing of the Law School Admission Test (“LSAT”).

3The respondent filed a partial Response on September 16, 2009, which requests early dismissal of the Application on the basis that it is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Specifically, the respondent states it is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States, its sole place of business is in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and all decisions related to test taker requests for accommodation on the LSAT are made in Pennsylvania.

4The applicant filed a Reply on September 30, 2009, which denies that the Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Specifically, she states that the respondent conducts business in Ontario.

5In my view, given the brevity of the parties’ submissions, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to request further written submissions on whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal therefore makes the following Order:

(a) The respondent is directed to deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal by November 6, 2009 written submissions, including documents and case law, if any, which address the issue of jurisdiction.

(b) The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal by November 13, 2009 written submissions, including documents and case law, if any, in reply.

(c) Both parties are directed to address the following case in their submissions:

• The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction in Carlisle v. Law School Admission Council, 2004 BCHRT 353: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca

6The respondent’s request that the applicant provide it with an executed written authorization and release in order to complete its Response will be addressed, if necessary, after the Tribunal has made a decision with respect to the issue of jurisdiction.

7I am not seized of this matter.