[59] I find the following additional aspects of EC's liability in this matter: (1) EC denied the Complainant barrier-free access to voting in both the 2008 by-election and general election in that not one entrance was accessible to a person with the disability that Mr. Hughes has; (2) EC denied him a service and adversely differentiated against him in its sub-standard investigation of his verbal and written complaints to it. EC didn't even record his March 17th election day verbal complaint. EC's response to his written complaint to it and his CHRA Complaint was tardy and inaccurate, and its tone dismissive. It is disappointing that in its August 6th letter to the Commission addressing the CHRA Complaint (five months after his complaints to EC), EC made so many factual errors. The most glaring one was that all three entrances "were unlocked during voting hours." Notwithstanding EC said in the August 6th letter that in the course of its review of his complaint "election officers were interviewed and an on-site inspection of the polling station was conducted", no one at EC's national headquarters in Ottawa realized that the only accessible entrance (main, front door #1) had been locked on election day until November 2008 when the investigation was completed, according to Mr. Roussel's testimony. But the August 6 th letter states that EC's investigation had been completed by then. Had EC done a competent investigation sooner, it no doubt would have realized this fact and rectified it for the October 2008 general election by either contacting St. Basil's Church and making sure it kept the door unlocked on election day or seeking out a different (and accessible) location. I accept Mr. Hughes' evidence that EC's poor handling of his verbal and written complaints to EC and his Complaint to the Commission, including the tone and content of the August 6th letter, upset him as much or more than the actual two voting events. [60] Based on the evidence presented, I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out by the Complainant and no reasonable explanation, defence or exemption provided by the Respondent with regard to the additional facts triggering liability not admitted to by EC. The Respondent indicated that "mistakes were made" and they have learned from the incidents. 2010 CHRT 4 (CanLII) in by-elections. Indeed, no mention is made of his verbal complaint that day. As indicated earlier, I accept Mr. Hughes' version of this episode. [58] Mr. Hughes indicated that he was quite upset with EC's August 6 th letter. He stated that EC's response, or lack thereof in general, upset him as much as the frustrating voting experiences. He said the August 6 th letter was dismissive and suggested that he was incompetent and unable to read signs: "The letter was a complete denial of my experience." I agree that the tone of the letter is somewhat dismissive. But more importantly, many of the factual statements given are clearly incorrect: in particular, that entrance #1 (the only accessible one of the three entrances) had been open on the day of the by-election. I find it difficult to accept that, after having interviewed its officials who were present at St. Basil's Church and investigated the matter, EC was under the illusion that entrance #1 had been available on the day of the by-election. That suggests that, notwithstanding the signs pointing away from entrance #1, no one told the EC investigating official that entrance #1 had been locked that day. I do not know from the evidence whether EC in its investigation contacted the Church to verify what entrances were open that day. At a minimum, EC's investigation was flawed.