To that end, let's dissect a relatively recent case (April, 2012) of two students who alleged they were discriminated against by their school's failure to properly accommodate them.
In D.S. v. London District Catholic School Board, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dealt with two complaints, both alleging that the London District Catholic School Board had failed to accommodate students with learning disabilities.
The first student had been diagnosed with ADHD and a mild visual-spatial learning disability. After attending school in Grades 1 and 2, he was home-schooled for a while and then returned to school on a half-day schedule in Grade 5. Several issues had arisen over the course of the school year, including a disagreement regarding when he should start attending school full-time, the level of support he would receive from the Student Program Support Teacher (especially the amount of withdrawal assistance he would receive) and when and how the school would implement certain recommendations of a private psychologist.
The family was unsuccessful, with the Tribunal finding that the Board had provided proper accommodation for the student's needs as they were known at the time, noting that there was no expert evidence suggesting that the student required a half-day schedule in order to be successful and no specific evidence as to the amount of assistance or withdrawal assistance that he should receive. The Tribunal also found that the Board had implemented the psychologist’s recommendations, albeit not exactly in the form that the parents would have preferred.
Of note, the Tribunal went on to consider the procedure that school boards must follow to in order to meet their duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code. In this regard, the Tribunal found that compliance with the procedural aspect of the duty to accommodate does not require a Board to provide a student with everything requested. Rather, it requires that there be discussion and consideration of how to accommodate the person’s disability-related needs. In this case, the extensive discussions between the Board, parents and other professionals throughout the school year were found sufficient to fulfill the Board’s procedural obligations. 
The parents of the second student, who had been diagnosed with ADHD and a communications learning disability, alleged that his teachers had consistently failed to accommodate his needs, which required “chunking” (breaking down a task into smaller component parts), using “mind maps” (an aid to organize thoughts for writing), and addressing other organization issues. They also alleged that the Board had failed to provide him with adaptive technology in a timely manner.
As in the first case, the Tribunal found that the Board had met its duty to accommodate. Contrary to the allegations, the teacher had went “above and beyond what is required of a teacher to provide additional support and assistance" to the student after school hours. Although there had been a six-month delay in trialing software that would address the student's writing issues, the Tribunal found that during that time, the teacher had provided the substance of the accommodation through a non-technological process.
Importantly, the Tribunal noted that although “more” could always be done to assist a student with a learning disability, whether more could have been done is not the appropriate question in cases regarding the duty to accommodate a student’s disability under the Code. Instead, the Tribunal must ask whether there is evidence that the student has specific disability-related needs requiring accommodation, and whether the school board failed to provide accommodation sufficient to meet those needs.
This decision confirmed one of the Tribunal's previous decisions to the effect that a school’s failure to meet parents’ expectations is not synonymous with a breach of the Code. Schools and school boards have a duty to engage in discussion with the parties involved and consider how to accommodate the student’s disability-related needs but there is no requirement that a school board agree to implement all of the accommodations that a student’s parents may request.
Further, the Code does not require a school board to implement accommodations that match the recommendations in an IEP (Individual Education Plan) or of a specialist precisely. As similar accommodation can sometimes be provided by a teacher or through the use of adaptive technology, as long as the substance of the necessary accommodation is provided, the school board will have met its duty to accommodate.
Take away points for all the would-be human rights activists out there:
- a school’s failure to meet parents’ expectations is not synonymous with a breach of human rights legislation;
- compliance with human rights legislation appears to require only "a discussion and consideration" of how to accommodate the student’s disability-related needs;
- a school board is not required to implement accommodations that precisely match the recommendations in an IEP or of a specialist
- as long as the substance of the necessary accommodation is provided, the school board will have met its duty to accommodate; and
- the importance of expert evidence setting out precisely what the particular student's "disability-related" needs are cannot be overstated
 It is amazing how closely the facts of this case parallel that of a Nova Scotia case from quite a few years back. When that situation was brought to the attention of the NS Human Rights Commission, the parents were shut down on the basis of a Commission policy providing that no claims of discrimination in connection with a student would be considered unless and until all avenues of appeal had been exhausted under the Education Act. Whether this policy is still in existence I cannot say; however, I was recently advised by a Commission employee that she was not familiar with any such policy and a review of the Commission's policies currently available online show no such policy.
 Pursuant to sec. 29(4) of Nova Scotia's Human Rights Act, the Commission may dismiss a complaint at anytime in various circumstances, including if the complaint is considered without merit, raises no significant issues of discrimination or there is no reasonable likelihood that an investigation will reveal a contravention of the Act.