Tariq Iqbal v. Ontario (Health and Long-term Care), 2010 HRTO 2351

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tariq Iqbal

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2351

Indexed as: Iqbal v. Ontario (Health and Long-term Care)

APPEARANCES

Tariq Iqbal, Applicant ) Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario ) as represented by the Minister of ) Michael Dunn, Counsel Health and Long-Term Care, Respondent )

1This is an Application filed on January 2, 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”).

2The hearing in this Application commenced on September 24, 2009, in Ottawa and resumed on November 25, 2010. At the time and place set for the resumption of the hearing, the applicant was not in attendance. In accordance with the Tribunal’s practice, the hearing commenced in the applicant’s absence but was held down for 30 minutes. After the conclusion of the 30 minutes the applicant was still not in attendance and the hearing proceeded in his absence.

3Counsel for the respondent took the position that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the applicant and should be determined on the basis of the materials filed with the Tribunal in accordance with Rule 5.1(3). I heard the submissions of the respondent and dismissed the Application orally at the hearing with reasons to follow.

4The material filed by the applicant is very limited and does not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination. Although there was document exchange between the parties, no documents were filed by the applicant, nor did he file a Statement of Additional Facts and Remedies sought as required by the Tribunal’s Rules. The materials filed are insufficient to establish a prima facie case that the Code has been violated. I also consider that, by his failure to appear at the hearing, the applicant has abandoned the Application and would dismiss it on that basis as well.

5By way of background the applicant’s claim arises out of what he says is differential treatment of international medical graduates (“IMGs”) as opposed to Canadian medical graduates (“CMGs”). For purposes of this Decision it is not disputed that physicians who have completed an undergraduate degree in a medical school that is accredited by the Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools in Canada (“CACMS”) or the Liaison Committee on Medical Education in the United States (“LCME”) are referred to as Canadian medical graduates. The term international medical graduate is applied to physicians who have completed undergraduate medical degrees in a program that does not have CACMS or LCME accreditation. I have assumed without deciding that there are no medical schools outside of Canada or the United States that are so accredited.

6The applicant states that the basis for his claim is that as a Canadian citizen he was treated differently than other individuals seeking to become physicians in Ontario because he was trained and educated outside of Canada. The respondent agrees that the applicant took his medical undergraduate degree in a non-accredited medical school outside of Canada and for our purposes he is an IMG.

7There are two broad aspects to the applicant’s discrimination claim. First, the applicant states that he was prevented from making an application for the residency of his choice because at the time there were restrictions on the ability of IMGs to apply for certain residency programs. However, very shortly after the applicant’s complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, these restrictions were lifted and in fact the applicant was able to apply for residency positions in his chosen speciality. However, he was, at least initially, unsuccessful in these attempts. He states that although he was able to make these applications, he was hindered in his ability to successfully do so because the restrictions were lifted very late in the application process for him. There is no evidence before me that that would support any conclusions with respect to the reasons for the applicant’s lack of success in securing his desired residency and accordingly this aspect of the Application must be dismissed.

8The other aspect of the claim is that the applicant was discriminated against as a Canadian citizen because, as an IMG, he was required to enter into a Return of Service Agreement with the respondent in exchange for the funding of his residency by the respondent. He states that this is discrimination on the basis of where he received his medical education. The respondent agrees that the applicant, because he is an IMG, was required to enter into a Return of Service Agreement in exchange for the funding of the applicant’s residency program by the Government of Ontario.

9Although not essential to these reasons, for clarity’s sake the return of service program is said to be part of a package of government strategies intended to improve access to essential medial health services in under serviced communities. In exchange for certain financial incentives and/or funded training and assessment opportunities (including those provided to IMGs), the Ministry requires participants to provide services for a specified period of time in under-serviced areas. The training opportunities offered in exchange for a Return of Service Agreement assist certain medical school graduates, including IMGs, to meet the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s eligibility requirements.

10The applicant asserts that these two aspects of his claim are both in violation of his rights as a Canadian citizen compared to others seeking to become physicians who were trained in Canada.

11The respondent states, and I agree, that a distinction or discrimination made on the basis of where one receives their education and training is not discrimination under the Code, unless the place that education or training occurred can be seen as a proxy for place of origin and ethnic origin or citizenship. See White v. The National Committee on Accreditation, 2010 HRTO 1888. The respondent states, and I agree, that evidence from the applicant is required to make that link between the place where he was educated and his ethnic origin or place of origin. There is no such evidence. This may be in part because the applicant was clear that his claim had nothing whatsoever to do with his place or origin or ethnic origin.

12In any event, the applicant states that he is a Canadian citizen. Other than that fact, I have no evidence that would support the inference that the distinction or discrimination between IMG’s generally, or the applicant in particular, and CMGs is a proxy for his place or origin or ethnic origin. Indeed, there is no evidence of the applicant’s ethnic origin or place of origin at all and any conclusions in that regard would be little more than speculation.

13For all of these reasons the Application is dismissed.