Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Human rights – Discrimination – Whether the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario erred in its interpretation of s. 23(2) of the Human Rights Code – Whether the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario erred in its finding that the applicant was dishonest or made a misrepresentation in the application process – Whether the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario erred in its interpretation of s. 5(2) and s. 10 of the Code – Whether the Divisional Court erred in holding that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the correct test for discrimination and the duty to accommodate – Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19.

The Applicant, Ms. Visic entered first year law school at the University of Windsor in September 1999. She did not have a successful year academically. In June 2000, the Associate Dean at the University advised her that she was required to discontinue the study of law at the University because she had failed two courses and had not achieved a passing cumulative average. Ms. Visic successfully appealed this decision to the Academic Status Committee and was re-admitted to year one of Law School, based on medical grounds. Ms. Visic deferred that acceptance, but re-entered first year law school in September 2002. She completed her three years and graduated in 2005 with an LL.B. When Ms. Visic learned that the 1999/2000 would be included in her official transcript, she made several attempts to persuade the University officials to remove the 1999/2000 year from her official transcript or to have the grades be shown as voluntary withdrawals. The University refused. Ms. Visic believes that the University’s insistence on including her failed year on her official transcript is discriminatory. The University’s position on this issue has led to considerable litigation and numerous human rights proceedings brought by Ms. Visic, including three judicial review applications before the Divisional Court.

In this application, Ms. Visic filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging that the Respondents, Elia Associates Professional Corporation, Patricia Elia and Richard Elia harassed, discriminated and reprised against her with respect to employment and membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability. In the summer of 2007, when applying for a position as an articling student with the Respondent law firm, Ms. Visic submitted unofficial grade reports from 2002-2005 as her law school transcript. About three months after being hired, Ms. Visic was asked to produce a copy of her final school transcript. She complied and in addition provided a letter from the university’s Academic Status Committee which indicated that Ms. Visic was readmitted to first year based on medical grounds. Elia Associates terminated Ms. Visic’s employment approximately seven weeks after she supplied them with the official transcript and Committee letter. Ms. Visic’s discrimination claim was dismissed. Her subsequent application for judicial review was dismissed and her further motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed.

---

---