Legaluow

**PROPOSED CLASS ACTION & PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM

Comprehensive Summary of Facts and Legal Basis

PROPOSED CLASS ACTION (PRIMARY PROCEEDING)

Proposed Representative Plaintiff

Asadul Alam

Defendants

University of Windsor

Proposed Class Period

2001 – 2026

Proposed Class Definition

All students including with or without disabilities who, during the class period, were:

  • Denied reasonable disability accommodation;
  • Subjected to discriminatory admissions, academic, or disciplinary decisions;
  • Excluded from campus or academic participation without lawful process;
  • Denied procedural fairness, reasons, hearings, or appeal rights;
  • Retaliated against for asserting disability-related or human-rights protections;
  • Harmed by institutional misuse of administrative or campus police authority.

Class Action Basis

This action challenges a systemic, long-standing institutional pattern of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, procedural unfairness, and abuse of authority by a publicly funded university, affecting a broad and identifiable class of vulnerable students over more than two decades.

The claims raise common issues of law and fact appropriate for certification, including:

  • Whether the Defendants breached Charter, human rights, and administrative-law obligations;
  • Whether accommodation and disciplinary practices were systemically unlawful;
  • Whether class members suffered compensable psychological, academic, and economic harm.

INDIVIDUAL CLAIM (REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF)

In addition to the class claims, Mr. Alam advances an individual personal injury and public-law claim arising from the same institutional misconduct, with aggravated and permanent consequences specific to him.

CHRONOLOGICAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2000–2001: Enrolment and Revocation of Accommodation(Human right violation)

  • Mr. Alam enrolled as an international transfer student in Fall 2000.
  • By Fall 2001, he experienced significant physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments.
  • The University knew or ought to have known of his disability.
  • Previously granted accommodation was revoked without reassessment, justification, or alternative planning.
  • Academic decisions were rendered without accommodation or individualized assessment, rendering them legally invalid.
  • Mr. Alam was prevented from continuing in the four-year program despite having completed all degree requirements except two courses by transfer credit.

2005–2006: Consequent Severe Psychological Injury and denial of accommodation(Human right violation and charter violation)

  • Ongoing discrimination and exclusion caused major depression and multiple suicide attempts.
  • Mr. Alam was treated at Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital Emergency Unit.
  • The University allowed course withdrawal but implemented no accommodation, reintegration, or safety framework.
  • A medically vulnerable student was left unprotected, placing life and security at serious risk.

2008–2009: Medical Collapse and Forced Departure. (mental health and physical health suffering continues)

  • Hospitalized at Toronto General Hospital for life-threatening hypertension.
  • Forced to leave Canada and return to parental care due to inability to live independently.

2002–2014: Discriminatory Denial of Admission (ignored developed disability)(human right violation)

  • Repeated denials of admission to the four-year Bachelor’s program.
  • Admissions decisions lacked meaningful, individualized accommodation analysis, contrary to Ontario appellate authority.
  • These denials prolonged and compounded earlier discrimination.

2012–2013: Legal Proceedings

  • Proceedings against two University psychologists:
    • One concluded in Mr. Alam’s favour;
    • The second could not proceed due to inability to obtain expert evidence while outside Canada.

2015–2017: Negligence Late Admission and Continuing Harm

  • After 12 years, the University admitted Mr. Alam using the same grades submitted in 2002.
  • The University:
    • Continued to penalize him for a low average caused by its own failures;
    • Imposed a new academic structure requiring three additional years, instead of the eight months required absent discrimination.
  • The University failed to restore him to his rightful academic position.

2018-2026 Discipline, and Campus Exclusion (Contract Breach, retaliation, and charter violation)

  • The University breached its contractual obligations to the student.
  • Disability-related non-compliance was miss characterized as misconduct.
  • Campus police and administration imposed a cease-and-desist / trespass-type order:
    • Without notice, hearing, reasons, or appeal;
    • Without disability consideration.
  • Mr. Alam, who has no criminal record or history of violence, was treated as a security risk without justification.

2022–2026: FOIA / FIPPA Obstruction to justice

  • Formal access-to-information requests were submitted in 2022.
  • The University:
    • Failed to disclose records;
    • Failed to issue lawful refusal decisions;
    • Diverted disclosure into explanation letters;
    • Obstructed appeal timelines.
  • This constitutes an ongoing denial of procedural access rights.

RESULTING HARM (CLASS AND INDIVIDUAL)

  • Severe depression and psychosis and disability of 25 years
  • Traumatic and/or acquired brain injury, including:
    • Memory impairment,
    • Cognitive decline,
    • Executive dysfunction;
    • Sleeping Disorder
    • Concentration Problem
  • Loss of lifelong academic, faculty, and entrepreneurial career opportunities;
  • Permanent psychological and neurological injury commencing from the age 24 to 48 and will be continuing for the rest of the life.
  • Internal Injury

The harm is ongoing, cumulative, and irreversible.

LEGAL VIOLATIONS (CONSOLIDATED)

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

  • Sections 7, 9, 10, and 15(1)

Ontario Human Rights Code

  • Sections 1, 5, and 17 (disability discrimination and duty to accommodate)

Administrative Law

  • Denial of procedural fairness, reasons, hearings, and appeal rights

Negligence

  • Breach of duty of care
  • Negligent infliction of severe psychological injury

Criminal-Law Procedural Principles (By Analogy)

  • Unlawful exercise of coercive authority without safeguards

Institutional Misconduct

  • Retaliation
  • Abuse of authority
  • Continuing breach over decades

CONTINUING BREACH AND SIGNIFICANCE

The misconduct is systemic and ongoing, not historical.

The case raises issues appropriate for:

  • Class action certification
  • Personal injury damages
  • Charter and public-law remedies
  • Systemic injunctive relief