White v. University of Ottawa, 2009 HRTO 2129

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Svetlana White

Applicant

-and-

University of Ottawa

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: December 9, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2129

Indexed as: White v. University of Ottawa

AppearanceS BY

Svetlana White, Applicant ) On her own behalf

University of Ottawa, Respondent ) Alain Roussy, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on January 9, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2A Hearing was held on November 20, 2009. The applicant alleges discrimination in goods and services on the basis of place of origin. She alleges that she was refused admission to the Ottawa University Faculty of Law because she was from Russia. The respondent states she was not admitted because of a low LSAT score and a poor academic record.

Comments during the Admissions Process

3The applicant testified that she was told by an admissions officer, Anna St. Jacques, that she could not apply as a general applicant because with her extensive legal education and background, it would be unfair to Canadian students. The admissions officer told her she could not be considered unless she first applied for accreditation with the National Committee on Accreditation ("NCA") and that if the NCA rejected her, the respondent would also reject her. The admissions officer also told her she had to take the Law School Admission Test ("LSAT") and a specific course from Ottawa University.

4The applicant applied to the NCA, took the LSAT and the recommended course and applied for admission as a first year LL.B. student in October 2003 for admission in September 2004. When she contacted the admissions office to check the status of her application, she spoke with a different admissions officer, Genevieve Hogan-Rancourt. The officer told her that she is from Russia and the school does not accept foreign students.

5I do not accept the applicant's evidence that the admissions officers made the above comments. Ms. St. Jacques testified that she would not have made the comments or given the advice. The comments and advice are contrary to the respondent's admissions and diversity policies. I note as that the alleged comments about her qualifications being superior to those of Canadian students and that respondent does not admit foreign students were not mentioned in her original complaint. Further, the evidence established that the respondent does accept foreign students.

The Admissions Decision

6Professor Stephane Emard-Chabot, the Assistant Dean and Chair of the Admissions Committee from 2001 to 2008, testified about the process of assessing the applicant's application for admission.

7The respondent received 2,700 applications for admission to the first year of the LL.B. program in September 2004. Of these, 300, including the applicant's, were made in the "mature applicant" stream.

8All mature applicants were assessed separately. The admissions committee, comprised of the Assistant Dean, the admissions officer, the education equity officer, faculty members and students, reviewed a random sample of approximately 25 applications and determined whether the student would be admitted or rejected. Based on those discussions, the Assistant Dean and the admissions officer gained an understanding of what the committee was looking for and the remaining applications were reviewed by the Assistant Dean and admissions officer against that understanding. The applications were divided into three categories: those that would be admitted, those that would be rejected, and those that should be reviewed by the full committee.

9Professor Emard-Chabot testified that he reviewed the applicant's entire application file, which included the written part of the LSAT In light of her legal education and experience, he thought she was an interesting candidate who would add to the diversity of the law school; however, her LSAT score, which was in the lowest one percentile, was troubling. He testified that the ability to read a large volume of material in English and write in English are important indicators of ability to complete the program. While the LSAT is not an exact predictor of success in law school, it is a factor that is taken into account. The extremely low LSAT score, the applicant's grade of 64 in the only university level course she had taken, and the answer she provided in the written part of the LSAT test indicated to the Assistant Dean that the applicant would likely not be successful in law school. Accordingly, he made the determination, in conjunction with the admissions officer, to reject her application.

10The respondent's admissions policy states that where the applicant's mother tongue is not English, the LSAT, while relevant, may carry less weight in the evaluation. I am satisfied that the respondent considered the possibility that the applicant's place of origin could have had an impact on her LSAT score but nevertheless, and based on a combination of factors, found that she was not a suitable candidate for the program. The list of students admitted by the respondent in 2004 included many persons with low LSATs, although no one with a score nearly as low as the applicant's.

11I am satisfied that the respondent rejected the applicant's application for admission because of bona fide concerns about her ability to complete the program. I am not able to conclude that the applicant has met her onus to demonstrate that her Russian ancestry or place of origin was a factor.

12For these reasons, the Application is dismissed.