minicounsel

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Laurie Brown

Applicant

-and-

Seven Generations Education Institute and Laura Horton

Respondents

-and-

Queen’s University

Intervenor

decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: August 13, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1684

Indexed as: Brown v. Seven Generations Education Institute

APPEARANCES:

Laurie Brown, ) Did not appear

Applicant )

Seven Generations Education Institute ) Mary Catherine Chambers

and Laura Horton, ) Counsel

Respondents )

Queen’s University, Intervenor ) Mary Catherine Chambers,

) Counsel

[1] A hearing to deal with this Application was scheduled for August 4, 2010 in Thunder Bay. The personal respondent and the Director of Administration for the organizational respondent were present, and were represented by Ms. Chambers, counsel. Ms. Chambers also represented the Intervenor, Queen’s University. The applicant did not appear.

[2] Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure deals with situations where a party fails to attend a scheduled hearing:

3.13 Where a party has been notified of a hearing and fails to attend, the Tribunal may:

a) proceed in the party’s absence;

b) determine that the party is not entitled to further notice of the proceedings;

c) determine that the party is not entitled to present evidence or make submissions to the Tribunal;

d) decide the Application based solely on the materials before it;

e) take any other action it considers appropriate.

[3] In this case, confirmation of the Hearing was sent to the parties on March 22, 2010. The Notice was sent to the applicant at the address provided in the Application. The Tribunal has not been advised of any change in the applicant’s contact information and the Notice was not returned. There is no reason to suppose that the applicant did not have proper notice of the scheduled hearing.

[4] The respondents submitted that I should dismiss the Application on the grounds that it is without merit. After waiting half an hour after the scheduled start time, I heard the submissions from the respondents and the intervener regarding the request to dismiss the Application. The Response and the Request to Intervene set out the facts relied on by the respondent and intervenor in answer to the applicant’s allegations. At the hearing, these parties adopted those facts as their evidence.

Background

[5] The organizational respondent facilitates access to institutions of higher learning for Aboriginal people. It will also provide assistance to non-Aboriginal people if there are spaces available.

[6] The applicant was interested in attending the Aboriginal Teacher Education Program (the “Program”), offered by Queen’s University (the “University”). In 2006 and again in 2007, he submitted various documents to the University in support of his application to the Program but did not file a completed application package and did not have his transcripts from previous educational institutions forwarded to the University’s Admissions Office in the form required by the University. The Registrar of the University’s Faculty of Education wrote to the applicant on June 12, 2006 and June 19, 2007 to advise that the Faculty was unable to offer admission to the Program.

[7] The personal respondent advised me that the documents that the applicant submitted to the University in support of his application to the Program in 2006 and 2007 were not sent to the organizational respondent and neither it nor the personal respondent saw them until they received the Application from this Tribunal.

[8] In his Application to this Tribunal, the applicant alleged that he was denied admittance to the Program because of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, disability and creed. He also alleged that he had been subject to reprisal or threat of reprisal.

[9] The respondents submit that they could not have discriminated against the applicant in respect of the decision to not offer him admission to the Program because they had nothing to do with that decision. The respondents referred to Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 909, dated June 25, 2009. That Interim Decision dealt with a request to intervene by the University. In that decision a Vice-chair of the Tribunal determined (at paragraph 6):

[T]he University is the organizational entity responsible for the program, its representatives had various communications with the applicant and it was the decision maker in the decision to deny the applicant’s admission into the program.

[10] The respondents note that the Interim Decision found as a fact that it was the University and not the respondents who made the decision to deny the applicant admission into the Program.

[11] The University is an Intervener in respect of the Application before this Tribunal but is not a respondent.

Conclusions

[12] In his Application, the applicant alleged that the personal respondent and the organizational respondent in some way negatively influenced the decision making process by the University. However, the Application provides no facts that might support this allegation. The respondents and the intervener have provided evidence to show that the decision to deny admission to the program was made by the University and not by the respondents. This evidence also establishes that neither the personal respondent nor the organizational respondent influenced the decision made by the University.

[13] There is no evidence to show that either the personal respondent or the organizational respondent had any role in the decision by the University to not offer the applicant admission to the Program. On the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, I find that the respondents did not discriminate against the applicant in respect of the decision to deny the applicant admission to the Program.

[14] The Application also alleges that the respondents discriminated against him during a conversation with the personal respondent. According to the Application, the personal respondent gave him counselling respecting other career options, including work as an “activity instructor” which could lead to employment in work such as an instructor at a summer camp. According to the Application, the applicant felt that this was “demeaning and degrading” because, in the applicant’s opinion, he was clearly over-qualified for teacher’s college.

[15] Apart from his theory that he was over qualified for a teaching program, the Application does not explain why counselling about career options would be discriminatory. At the hearing the personal respondent advised that she had not discriminated against the applicant.

[16] Although the applicant checked off “reprisal” on the Application form, there were no facts set out that could give rise to a claim under section 9 of the Code and this allegation is dismissed.

[17] On the basis of the evidence and submissions before the Tribunal I find that the respondents did not discriminate against the applicant on the basis of any ground covered by the Code, did not engage in a reprisal under the Code, and the Application is dismissed.

ORDER

[18] The Application is dismissed. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to support the allegations made in the Application.

Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of August, 2010.

”signed by”_______________

Brian Cook

Vice-chair

Brown v. Seven Generations Education Institute, 2010 HRTO 1684

Case Summary

Respondents )

[2] Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure deals with situations where a party fails to attend a scheduled hearing:

Background

[5] The organizational respondent facilitates access to institutions of higher learning for Aboriginal people. It will also provide assistance to non-Aboriginal people if there are spaces available.

[8] In his Application to this Tribunal, the applicant alleged that he was denied admittance to the Program because of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, disability and creed. He also alleged that he had been subject to reprisal or threat of reprisal.

[10] The respondents note that the Interim Decision found as a fact that it was the University and not the respondents who made the decision to deny the applicant admission into the Program.

[11] The University is an Intervener in respect of the Application before this Tribunal but is not a respondent.

[15] Apart from his theory that he was over qualified for a teaching program, the Application does not explain why counselling about career options would be discriminatory. At the hearing the personal respondent advised that she had not discriminated against the applicant.

[16] Although the applicant checked off “reprisal” on the Application form, there were no facts set out that could give rise to a claim under section 9 of the Code and this allegation is dismissed.

[17] On the basis of the evidence and submissions before the Tribunal I find that the respondents did not discriminate against the applicant on the basis of any ground covered by the Code, did not engage in a reprisal under the Code, and the Application is dismissed.

[18] The Application is dismissed. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to support the allegations made in the Application.

Brown v. Seven Generations Education Institute, 2010 HRTO 1684

Case Summary

Respondents )

[2] Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure deals with situations where a party fails to attend a scheduled hearing:

Background

[5] The organizational respondent facilitates access to institutions of higher learning for Aboriginal people. It will also provide assistance to non-Aboriginal people if there are spaces available.

[8] In his Application to this Tribunal, the applicant alleged that he was denied admittance to the Program because of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, disability and creed. He also alleged that he had been subject to reprisal or threat of reprisal.

[10] The respondents note that the Interim Decision found as a fact that it was the University and not the respondents who made the decision to deny the applicant admission into the Program.

[11] The University is an Intervener in respect of the Application before this Tribunal but is not a respondent.

[15] Apart from his theory that he was over qualified for a teaching program, the Application does not explain why counselling about career options would be discriminatory. At the hearing the personal respondent advised that she had not discriminated against the applicant.

[16] Although the applicant checked off “reprisal” on the Application form, there were no facts set out that could give rise to a claim under section 9 of the Code and this allegation is dismissed.

[17] On the basis of the evidence and submissions before the Tribunal I find that the respondents did not discriminate against the applicant on the basis of any ground covered by the Code, did not engage in a reprisal under the Code, and the Application is dismissed.

[18] The Application is dismissed. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to support the allegations made in the Application.