Jordan Simon

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing their claim against the university.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after the university denied funding for a powerchair under a disability bursary program.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, finding that the Tribunal was not required to address every piece of evidence, reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the interpretation of the benefits manual, and correctly applied the test for prima facie discrimination.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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 Council of Ontario Universities brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision ordered the applicant university to implement a pilot project for admitting students with disabilities based on prior learning and assessment recognition rather than purely grades.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Council's sector-wide perspective on university autonomy and human rights compliance would usefully contribute to the determination of the application without causing injustice to the parties.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed amendments constituted a withdrawal of an admission regarding the date written notice of termination was provided.

The court found that the original pleading did not constitute an admission because it was not an unambiguous deliberate concession to a position taken by the plaintiff.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of defence under Rule 26.01, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, and awarded costs of the motion to the defendants.