Introduction
In the 2024 decision of Longueépée v. University of Waterloo, Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal (the “HRTO”) determined that students with disabilities are to be assessed holistically and in a manner that meaningfully accounts for disabilities. The failure to do so may constitute a breach of the Human Rights Code.
In the case, the HRTO awarded both an individual remedy to the affected student, and a systemic remedy requiring the University of Waterloo (the “University”) to initiate a pilot program consisting of flexible assessment procedures for applicants with disabilities applying across all of its programs. On judicial review, Ontario’s Divisional Court upheld the HRTO’s remedy as reasonable, setting a significant precedent for how academic institutions should balance the exercise of discretion in selecting applicants, along with their human rights obligations.
Case Background
In 2013, Roch Longueépée applied to the University but was denied admission. The University based its decision on his poor grades, which were obtained prior to his learning disability diagnosis (which were alleged not to reflect his learning potential). The HRTO and the courts ultimately agreed that the University discriminated against the candidate by basing its admissions decision predominantly on his grades, while failing to meaningfully consider the extracurricular activities, achievements, or strong reference letters in the applicant’s application.
Recognizing that conventional admissions criteria may disadvantage applicants with disabilities, the HRTO’s decision ordered both individual and systemic remedies. For Longueépée, the University was ordered to pay $20,000 in general damages for emotional distress. Additionally, for the benefit of future students, the University was required to implement a pilot program using Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (“PLAR”).
PLAR is an admissions procedure that allows applicants with disabilities to demonstrate skills and competencies gained outside the traditional classroom, in an attempt to ensure they are not excluded based solely on traditional academic metrics that may fail to reflect a student’s true abilities. Under the PLAR pilot program, the University must assess applicants with disabilities using broader criteria that capture knowledge and abilities gained through work experience, volunteer roles, or other life experiences. The HRTO ordered that the University must develop and implement a PLAR pilot program in the upcoming admissions cycle. This requires the University to hire one or more PLAR professionals to develop and evaluate the PLAR pilot program, while the University must publish the results so that other universities may consider adopting similar practices.
In 2025, the University sought to overturn the HRTO’s 2024 order on judicial review, arguing that the PLAR pilot project intruded on its academic autonomy and was unreasonable. However, the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the University’s application, confirming that the HRTO’s remedies were reasonable and within its mandate under the Human Rights Code. The Court also found that the PLAR pilot remedy struck a proper balance between institutional autonomy and the duty to accommodate disabilities under the Human Rights Code. Effectively, this decision affirms that while universities retain discretion in setting admission standards, they are not immune from tribunal or judicial scrutiny.
Key Takeaways:
Discretion has limits when it clashes with human rights.
While a university’s autonomy over admissions may be a core academic function, discretion is not immune from human rights scrutiny. A possible broader extension: about an employer’s hiring criteria, if employers have discretion in setting hiring criteria, what happens if those criteria have the effect of systematically disadvantaging candidates with disabilities? Could this be subject to successful challenge on the basis of the above-noted decisions?
An equitable application process requires flexible assessments.
The Court affirmed that universities are not permitted to cling to rigid, single-metric assessments, especially if those metrics fail to reflect an applicant’s unaccommodated disabilities. By extension, it would seem that employers may wish to anticipate and get ahead of this development by embedding accessibility into the design of recruitment processes from the outset, rather than waiting for individual requests. In other words, should employers re-evaluate hiring tools that fail to accommodate, such as timed online assessments or credential cut-offs, which can disproportionately screen out candidates with disabilities?
Systemic remedies are valid under human rights law.
The HRTO’s decision extends beyond the applicant: it required the implementation of a university-wide pilot program, which was found to be within the authority of the HRTO to order. For employers, it underscores a possibility that remedies for breaches of the Human Rights Code could potentially extend beyond accommodating an individual candidate to redesigning an entire recruitment process.
Conclusion
Longueépée v. University of Waterloo reflects a shift in human rights towards inclusive, flexible, and multifaceted application processes that promote accessibility while respecting institutional frameworks. The lesson is clear: accessible recruitment, at the very least in an academic institutional setting, extends beyond “good practice”. It is a reasonable legal expectation.
