Court File and Parties

CITATION: The University of Waterloo v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 1908

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 526/24

DATE: 20250326

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO, Applicant

AND

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO, ROCH LONGUEÉPÉE, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, Respondents

BEFORE: M.D. FAIETA J.

COUNSEL: Kathryn J. Bird and Jordan Simon, for the Applicant David Baker, for the Respondent Roch Longueépée Maija-lisa Robinson, for the Respondent Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario George Avraam and Ajanthana Anandarajah, for the Moving Party/Proposed Intervenor, Council of Ontario Universities

HEARD: In writing

Endorsement

FAIETA J.

[1] This is an application for judicial review of a remedial decision and a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”), ordering, inter alia, that the Applicant, the University of Waterloo (“Waterloo”) “initiate, implement and evaluate a Prior Learning and Assessment Recognition (“PLAR”) pilot project for the purposes of facilitating the potential admissions of students whose disabilities and past accommodations and experiences would make them ineligible for admission on the basis of a purely grades-based basis”.

[2] The Council of Ontario Universities (the “Council”) seeks leave to intervene on this application for judicial review as a friend of the Court on the following terms:

(a) The Council will file a factum no longer than 10 pages.

(b) The Council will present oral arguments of up to 30 minutes at the hearing.

(c) The Council will not adduce further evidence or otherwise supplement the parties’ records.

(d) The Council will consult with the parties and other intervenors to avoid repetition.

(e) The parties will serve their respective application record, responding records, facta, and books of authorities on the Council.

(f) The Council will not seek, nor will they be subject to, any award of costs, including the costs of the motion for leave to intervene.

[3] The Council consists of 20 publicly-assisted member universities, including Algoma University, Brock University, Carleton University, University of Guelph, Lakehead University, Laurentian University, McMaster University, Nipissing University, OCAD University, Ontario Tech University, University of Ottawa, Queen’s University, Toronto Metropolitan University, University of Toronto, Trent University, University of Waterloo, University of Western Ontario, Wilfrid Laurier University, University of Windsor, and York University.

[4] The Council serves as a voice for Ontario’s universities, focusing on areas such as funding, accessibility, innovation, and their role in Ontario’s economic and social development. It engages in legal and public policy matters affecting Ontario’s universities, offering sector-wide perspectives on systemic challenges. To this end, the Council states that it has intervened in significant legal matters as a friend of the court: See Michalski v. McMaster University, 2022 ONSC 2625, (addressed public health measures, institutional autonomy, and human rights); University of Toronto (Governing Council) v. Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (addressed campus safety, free speech under the Charter, human rights, and operational challenges related to encampments).

[5] The Council states that the HRTO directed Waterloo, a Council member, to implement a pilot PLAR program, with the intention that it serve as a potential model for other universities. Amongst other things, the Council submits that the “… universal remedy, as proposed by the Tribunal, risks undermining this individualized process and disregards the tailored practices universities already have in place to meet their obligations under the Human Rights Code. The [Council] seeks to assist this Court by providing a sector-wide perspective on the risks posed by the Tribunal’s remedy. Remedies must be proportional, evidence-based, effective, and directly linked to proven harm. The [Council] intends to make submissions on why public interest remedies like the one before this Court must also respect institutional diversity and align with practices that ensure compliance with the Human Rights Code without undermining university autonomy, academic integrity, and operational independence.”

[6] Rules 13.02 and 13.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure state:

13.02 Any person may, with leave of a judge or at the invitation of the presiding judge or associate judge, and without becoming a party to the proceeding, intervene as a friend of the court for the purpose of rendering assistance to the court by way of argument.

13.03 (1) Leave to intervene in the Divisional Court as an added party or as a friend of the court may be granted by a panel of the court, the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice or a judge designated by either of them.

[7] Whether leave to intervene as a friend of the court should be granted requires the consideration of "… the nature of the case, the issues which arise and the likelihood of the applicant being able to make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice to the immediate parties": Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd., [1990] O.J. No. 1378, at para. 10; Fair Voting BC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONCA 619, at para. 9.

[8] Further, whether a proposed intervenor can make a “useful contribution” turns on “… whether they will advance different and valuable insights and perspectives that will actually further the Court’s determination of the matter.”: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ishaq, 2015 FCA 151, at para. 9; Fair Voting BC, at para. 12.

[9] Waterloo consents to this motion. It is their view that the Council’s participation will contribute to a comprehensive resolution of the issues at hand and will not impede a timely hearing. The respondent Roch Longueépée advises that he take no position on this motion in light of the Council’s undertaking to adduce no additional evidence. Similarly, the respondent HRTO takes no position on this motion.

[10] Having considered the materials filed by the Council, including their draft Factum, and the submissions of the parties, I find that the Council’s unique perspective will usefully contribute to the determination of this application without causing any injustice to the parties.

M.D. Faieta J.

RELEASED: March 26, 2025