Moore and proving discrimination in access to services

In Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61, the Supreme Court considered meaningful access to education for a student with a disability. The Court identified an initial discrimination framework involving a protected characteristic, an adverse impact in the relevant service, and a connection between them.

The student had severe dyslexia and needed specialized support to access education meaningfully. After a diagnostic centre closed, his family obtained instruction privately and pursued a human rights complaint. The Court treated special education as a means of obtaining meaningful access to the general education service, rather than defining the relevant service so narrowly that the access problem disappeared. The factual and statutory setting explains the decision's importance while also limiting attempts to turn it into an automatic entitlement in unrelated service disputes.

The case arose under British Columbia legislation, so an Ontario application must still be assessed under the Human Rights Code and current law. Its practical value is in organizing evidence around the legal connection rather than simply describing an unfair outcome. Preserve the service request, disability-related needs, response, and resulting disadvantage. Where initial discrimination is established, justification and accommodation issues may follow. A forum-specific assessment is necessary before drawing conclusions about entitlement or compensation.

For an Ontario application, identify the service, protected characteristic, barrier, and resulting disadvantage under the governing Code. Keep the request, supporting information, response, and records of alternatives considered. Explain the connection rather than assuming an adverse outcome alone establishes discrimination. A service provider's justification and accommodation evidence may then require assessment under the applicable law. The practical value of the framework is its organization: it helps a reader see which facts are material and which legal questions remain. Remedy and compensation still depend on the proven breach and the tribunal's authority.

Sources

• Moore v British Columbia Education 2012 SCC 61
• Ontario Human Rights Code particularly sections 8 and 34

Read next: Sault Ste. Marie and the due diligence defence

General Ontario legal information, not legal advice for your matter, and reading it does not create a retainer. Sources checked 15 October 2026: check the current law, forms and dates before you act.

Photos from Pexels: The scales of justice beside a laptop · Law books on a library shelf.

This article is general information for people in Ontario, not legal advice. Rules, forms and deadlines change, and every situation is different. Check the current rule or speak to a licensed legal professional before you act.