Joan Van Tol

The applicant in a human rights complaint regarding the administration of the LSAT filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking to allow an expert witness to testify via teleconference, to adjourn the hearing, and to compel the production of documents and names of other test-takers.

The Tribunal allowed the expert to testify by teleconference and ordered the production of payment records, finding them arguably relevant.

However, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request as no exceptional circumstances were shown, and refused to order the disclosure of other test-takers' names due to privacy concerns.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the accommodation of his needs during the Law School Admission Test (LSAT).

The respondents requested the removal of two individual respondents, a test centre supervisor and a member of the respondent's misconduct subcommittee.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted liability for the individuals' actions, there was no issue regarding its ability to remedy any infringement, and no compelling reason existed to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The requests were granted and the individual respondents were removed as parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability regarding the Law School Admission Test (LSAT).

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's failure to provide pre-hearing disclosure and his requests for an adjournment, further production, and to amend the application.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances, and directed the applicant to comply with his disclosure obligations.

The respondent was directed to respond to the production and amendment requests.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of goods, services and facilities.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the university respondents.

At the outset of the hearing, the applicant withdrew the application against the university respondents, which was granted by the Tribunal.