Jinshu Xu v. Georgian College, 2011 HRTO 1262

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jinshu Xu Applicant

-and-

Georgian College, Betty McCoppen, Robert Emptage and Joyce Goheen Respondents

-and-

Ron Sky Intervenor

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Shannon Date: June 30, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1262 Indexed as: Xu v. Georgian College

APPEARANCES

Jinshu Xu, Applicant (Self-represented) Georgian College and Betty McCoppen, Robert Emptage, Joyce Goheen, Respondents (Patricia G. Murray, Counsel) Ron Sky, Intervenor (Self-represented)

1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), dated June 26, 2009. The human rights complaint underlying the Application was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on March 11, 2005 and abandoned upon the filing of this Application. Mr. Ron Sky was granted intervenor status by way of a Tribunal decision dated May 6, 2010.

2The applicant alleges he experienced discrimination because of age, place of origin, race, and reprisal in services when he was denied employment when applying for a job and when acting as a sessional lecturer with the corporate respondent, Georgian College (the “College”). He further alleges reprisal arising from an internal human rights complaint he filed against Georgian College when he was an unsuccessful candidate for the job that forms the substance of this Application. The respondents deny all of the allegations set out in the Application.

3The applicant is a Professional Engineer, who was an Associate Professor at a university in China before becoming a sessional lecturer for Bachelor Degree students with the College in 2002. On January 20, 2004, the College posted a vacancy for the position of Professor, Mechanical Engineering - Automotive Manufacturing to which the applicant applied and was unsuccessful.

4The respondent, Betty McCoppen, is employed as a Human Resource Service Consultant by the College. She also holds the position of “Complaint Consultant” and, as such, administers the College’s “Ontario Human Rights Complaint Resolution Procedure”. The respondent, Robert Emptage, is the Dean of Engineering Technology at the College. The respondent, Joyce Goheen, is also a Human Resources Services Consultant at the College. Part of Ms. Goheen’s responsibilities include sitting on selection panels in the College’s job competition process to ensure that its “Recruitment and Selection Procedures” are followed.

Preliminary Matters

5The respondents submit that portions of the applicant’s Statement of Additional Facts must be struck because they include additional facts and allegations that do not form part of the original complaint filed with the Commission. In particular, the respondents note:

• Paragraph 1 of the applicant’s Statement of Additional Facts alleges discrimination on the basis of the respondents’ original pleadings that were in response to his original complaint, and alleges that the respondents’ pleadings themselves are discriminatory and are “reprisals”. The respondents ask that this be struck.
• Paragraph 1 of the applicant’s Statement of Additional Facts also alleges improprieties with respect to the answers provided by the respondents at the Commission’s fact finding meeting that occurred in early 2008, more than three years after the complaint was filed. In the respondents’ submission, the applicant’s submission is improper, and the respondents request it be struck.
• Paragraph 7 of the applicant’s Statement of Additional Facts alleges that the interview panel “falsified the scores of the interview”. The respondents submit that this allegation is new and not part of the original complaint.
• Paragraph 9 of the applicant’s Statement of Additional facts alleges that the respondents’ original pleading (which details the student feedback about the applicant’s teaching) constitutes further “reprisal” and “threats” against the applicant. This paragraph also alleges that the respondents committed a “fraud” when compiling his student feedback and manipulated the process. These allegations are not part of the allegations in the original complaint and the respondents request that they be struck.
• Paragraph 10 of the applicant’s Statement of Additional Facts again alleges that the respondents’ Response (in which the respondents noted that it had offered to support the Applicant by providing coaching and counselling through ESL assistance) constitutes a “reprisal”. In the respondents’ submission, these submissions must also be struck.
• Paragraph 16 (pages 13 -15 of the applicant’s Statement of Additional Facts) are a further attack on the respondents’ pleading as a “forgery”, ”false evidence”, “threatening”, “fabricating”, “false statements” and “cheating”. The respondents submit that these pages are improper in their entirety and must be struck from the record.

6I agree with the respondents that these allegations were not part of the original complaint filed with the Commission and therefore not within my jurisdiction to consider as part of an application brought under the transitional provisions of the Code. Accordingly, the portions of the applicant’s Additional Statement of Facts, noted above, are struck.

The Evidence and Submissions

Allegations of Differential Treatment While Teaching at the College

7The applicant submits that he worked as a sessional lecturer at the College since 2002. The applicant alleges that the nature of his contractual relationship with the College, as a sessional lecturer, was an indication of differential treatment based on age and race that resulted in him being made what he terms, “cheap labour”. He submitted that there was a pattern of discrimination at the College due to the following allegations:

• He never had a written contract for the previous four semesters that he taught. The applicant submitted the respondents had done this in order to keep him in the dark and “squeeze the applicant out at any time they want it”.
• The corporate respondent never let him know the rights and enjoy the benefits he was entitled to in all the semesters that he lectured at the College.
• During at least three semesters, he was paid less than other sessional lecturers.
• He was not paid for instruction work for the independent study of two students in the last semesters. College administrators promised that he would get paid after he submitted the Student Mark Change Form. He believes that the failure to pay him for the instruction work was also a reprisal for his internal complaint of discrimination in the hiring process.

8The respondents submit that the applicant did not become an employee of the College until May 2003. The respondents’ evidence was that the applicant was first hired by the College as a lecturer, as a partial load employee, for a fixed term between May 5 and August 10, 2003. Partial load employees are covered by the Academic Collective Agreement between the College and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“OPSEU”). They pay union dues and are members of the Academic Bargaining Unit. Hourly rates of pay for partial load employees are established by the collective agreement and are set out in Article 26 of the collective agreement. The union chose not to intervene in this hearing.

9In accordance with Article 26.03 of the collective agreement, partial load employees are entitled to be provided with a copy of the collective agreement on the first occasion they become employed by the College. Contrary to the applicant’s assertions in the Application, the College’s records confirm that the College sent the applicant a copy of the collective agreement in the Spring of 2003. The College also provided the applicant with a copy of his Personnel Payroll Form (PPF), which sets out the total hours to be worked per week, the rate of pay per hour and courses to be taught. Furthermore, the PPF noted on its face that the applicant was provided with a memorandum outlining an election to enrol in the group benefits available to partial load employees. The applicant never returned this document.

10The applicant was hired by the College on another fixed term, partial load contract to teach 3 courses, 12 hours per week from September 2, 2003 to November 5, 2003. The applicant was provided with a copy of the PPF (including the terms and conditions as set out above), as well as a copy of the Partial Load Benefits memorandum.

11In the winter of 2004, the applicant was hired to teach the courses of a full time faculty member who had been seconded to India. This was a “sessional appointment”, which had a fixed term from January 5, 2004 to April 26, 2004. Once again, the applicant was provided a copy of the PPF, which set out his status, his hours of work, and his rate of pay. The terms and conditions of his sessional employment are set out on the PPF.

Teaching Assessments

12The respondents submitted that the applicant received poor student assessments respecting all of his teaching at Georgian College. They further submitted, and I accept (as set out further in this Decision), that the assessments demonstrated that even if the applicant was recommended for the position of Professor the recommendation would have been rejected because of such poor, past student feedback on his teaching.

13The respondents’ evidence was that early in the first teaching contract with the applicant there were difficulties with his teaching performance. This was ascertained through evaluations or feedback provided by the students in the courses taught by the applicant. The applicant was provided each time with copies of the student feedback.

14The feedback provided by students during the applicant’s first partial load employment (May-August, 2003) indicated significant difficulties with the applicant’s ability to convey course concepts to students, as well as his teaching style. This included problems being available for extra help and difficulty being understood in English. When asked in a questionnaire whether the teacher “presents course content in a clear and understandable way” and whether “the teacher communicates clearly and is easy to understand” over one third of the applicant’s students indicated he did not. The respondents’ evidence was that to receive such a low score on this questionnaire is unusual and was a significant concern to the College.

15Although he was provided with copies of the student feedback, the respondents’ evidence was that the applicant’s performance did not improve. The College attempted to coach the applicant on his communication skills. After the applicant’s first partial load appointment, the Associate Dean met with him on a number of occasions to provide support and assistance. The applicant was offered an opportunity to meet with the faculty member who was the head of the English as a Second Language programme, but he did not avail himself of this offer.

16In his second partial load appointment, the applicant was once again evaluated by his students. In this evaluation, over 50% of the students indicated that the applicant did not communicate clearly, nor was he easy to understand.

17The College’s evidence was that while the poor student feedback was of great concern, it continued to provide the applicant with teaching opportunities for three reasons. First, because there was an urgent need for a sessional lecturer to replace the faculty member on secondment. Second, because the applicant had strong knowledge of the subject areas to be taught. Third, because it was difficult to find someone with the required background to teach the available courses.

18However, the respondents’ evidence was that the student feedback regarding the applicant’s sessional appointment from January 5, 2004 to April 16, 2004 continued to raise significant concern for the College.

Job Competition

19During the applicant’s employment as a sessional appointment in the winter of 2004, the College determined that it would hire a full time faculty member for the Engineering Technology Department. On January 24, 2004, the College posted a vacancy for the position of Professor, Mechanical Engineering - Automotive Manufacturing.

20The applicant, along with twelve others, applied to this posting. The respondents’ evidence was that the applications of all thirteen applicants were carefully considered against the short list criteria and the top five ranking candidates were identified. The applicant was one of the top five ranking candidates, and, as such, along with the other four candidates, he was invited to an interview with the selection panel.

21Each candidate was notified by mail that he or she had been selected for an interview. Each candidate was also advised in writing of the estimated salary associated with the position. Prior to the commencement of the interview process, the selection committee formulated twelve specific questions and each question was assigned weight in accordance with its importance. Each question was also relevant to the criteria set out in the posting. In addition, the committee formulated a “mock” teaching exercise; each candidate was advised in advance that he or she was required to make a fifteen minute presentation to the selection committee, where the candidate was to assume that he or she was instructing a third semester class with little knowledge of the concept.

22The applicant was interviewed on February 11, 2004. On February 26, 2004, the applicant was informed by Mr. Emptage that the selection committee had chosen another candidate.

23The applicant challenges the outcome of the job competition and alleges discrimination based on the following allegations:

1. The successful candidate did not have the qualifications to meet the criteria for the short list, and his qualifications were inferior to those of the applicant. The applicant points to the fact that he had worked for five semesters and taught eleven different courses in the Engineering Department at the College.
2. The applicant perceived himself as an internal candidate because he had been a sessional lecturer and he believed that he should have received preference over external applicants.
3. Allowing external applications was a sign of favouritism to others and discrimination against him based on race and place of origin.
4. The selection committee was biased because one of the committee members was Vice President and Chief Steward, of OPSEU Local 349, although she indicated to him that she was there to represent the support staff.
5. The interview notice displayed the candidates’ starting salary. The applicant submits that the purpose was to show his age to the Committee members because in his view the committee could infer age from the salary information.

24The applicant also noted that, in his view, although the student population attending the College is racially and ethnically diverse, this is not reflected in faculty and staff at the College. In his original complaint with the Commission, the applicant noted that the successful candidate was “white”. In oral evidence during the hearing, it was stated that the successful candidate was in fact an aboriginal Canadian.

25The College agreed that the applicant’s qualifications were impressive. On the basis of his resume and qualifications the applicant met the requirements of the job posting and was invited to the next step in the process, which was an oral interview. However, four other candidates were regarded as equally qualified and were also entitled to progress to the next step of the job selection process. The respondents submit that applicant’s suggestion that he should not have been placed on the same short list because he had superior qualifications was incorrect, and misconstrues the selection process.

26The respondents’ evidence was that the applicant’s interview reflected a weakness in development of the curriculum and teaching resources. His answers on a question regarding dealing with difficult students reflected a serious lack of understanding of the issues associated with supporting difficult students. With respect to the mock “teaching” assignment, the panel’s scores reflected that the applicant’s performance was marginal. In fact, the applicant’s lesson to the selection committee was comprised solely of a lecture consisting of providing a textbook handout and reading from the text. It was committee’s assessment that this type of instructional delivery might be appropriate for the graduate level student, however, the applicant had been expressly advised to target his lecture to a “diploma level students assuming no knowledge of the concepts to be taught”. Accordingly, the applicant fared poorly in this important part of the process.

27The respondents’ evidence also indicated that while the student evaluations of the applicant’s teaching performance were poor, student feedback was not a part of this stage of selection process. The applicant’s qualifications satisfied the short list criteria, and he was therefore invited to the interview stage of the selection process. It is the College’s practice not to provide the selection committee with any information about a candidate’s student feedback during the competition process itself. However, once a candidate is recommended by the selection committee as the successful applicant, the Human Resource Services department would check all references of the applicant, including reviewing student feedback of teaching performance where the candidate has Georgian College teaching experience.

28Thus, it was the respondents’ submission that should the applicant have been recommended by the committee, his candidacy would have been rejected in any event, once the student feedback (discussed above) was reviewed as part of the reference check process. They therefore submit that the applicant was not discriminated against by the hiring process because he did not meet the requirements of the position.

29The respondents also submitted that the applicant was not an “internal” applicant, as set out in the collective agreement. As noted above, at the time of posting on January 20, 2004, the applicant was a sessional employee and was not covered by the provisions of the collective agreement. Accordingly, his application was properly considered along with other external applicants, and he was not entitled to preferential treatment as an internal candidate.

30The selection committee appointed for this posting was comprised of six individuals, including two representatives from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU). One OPSEU representative was from the support staff unit, while the other was a representative of the academic (or faculty) bargaining unit. Additionally, a member of the human resources department, the respondent, Joyce Goheen, was present on the committee to ensure that the process was fair and in compliance with the College’s “Recruitment and Selection Procedure”. The evidence of the respondent was that the composition of selection committees, including the selection committee at issue here, is deliberately chosen to ensure that a diverse representation of the College stakeholders are represented, including support staff.

31All candidates, including the applicant, were interviewed on February 11, 2004. The respondents’ evidence was that all candidates were asked the same questions, in the same order, by the same interview panel, and asked to give the above mentioned fifteen minute lecture to the selection panel. Each member of the selection panel independently scored each candidate based on the objective criteria and the scoring method set out on the interview question sheet. The panel unanimously chose the successful candidate. His total score was significantly higher than that of the applicant, and the applicant did not score sufficiently high enough to be recommended as the second candidate.

32The respondents indicated that the Department of Engineering Technology routinely informs candidates the potential salary for the competition position as the College’s teaching salary is far below industry or private sector compensation. This practice ensures that the candidates fully understand the remuneration associated with the position before they proceed further in the selection process. The respondents submit this was not inappropriate nor was this “age discrimination”, as alleged. Also, even if the applicant were able to connect the letter contents to age discrimination, these letters respecting salary were not before the selection committee. The applicant could not explain how this practice discriminated against him on the basis of age and, as discussed below in the Decision, I am unable to find that it did.

33The College was able to provide the applicant with another partial load appointment from May 3, 2004 to August 6, 2004. The student feedback was again poor. By the Fall of 2004, there were no further teaching opportunities available for the applicant. The return of a faculty member from secondment in India coupled with the filling of the full time position meant the College had increased teaching capacity.

The Internal Complaint

34On February 26, 2004, Mr. Emptage telephoned the applicant to inform him that the selection committee had chosen another candidate. He went on to advise the applicant that he would talk to the Academic Officer to arrange enough hours for the applicant to teach as a sessional lecturer in the coming semester.

35The applicant filed a complaint pursuant to the College’s Human Rights policy on August 3, 2004. The complaint named the selection committee and Mr. Emptage, the Chair of the Committee, as responding parties.

36Ms. McCoppen was charged with the responsibility for processing and investigating the applicant’s internal human rights complaint. The applicant alleged that Ms. McCoppen “breached trust” and “illegally” handed out the applicant’s complaint to all six members of the selection committee. In his view, only Mr. Emptage, as the Committee Chair, should have received the complaint. The applicant believes that this act was discriminatory and amounted to retaliation against him.

37As noted above, the applicant’s internal complaint named the entire “selection committee”, as well as, Mr. Emptage, as the “respondent”.

38The respondents submit that in order to deal with applicant’s internal complaint, the Complaint Consultant is required, by its internal Human Rights Procedure and the principles of natural justice to provide the respondents to an internal complaint with the particulars of the allegations made against them. Therefore, in order to investigate the applicant’s allegations against the selection committee, Ms. McCoppen was fully entitled to advise the committee of the applicant’s complaint in order to provide the committee with an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the respondents argue that the applicant’s allegations that providing the selection committee with a copy of the applicant’s complaint was “proof of racial discrimination”, or was designed to be “retaliation against the complaint” or “to stimulate racial hatred” are unfounded.

39The College’s investigation of the applicant’s allegations that he was denied the full time position because of racial discrimination concluded that there was no evidence of racial discrimination and the successful candidate was the superior candidate. The College advised the applicant of the results of this investigation in a written letter from Ms. Goheen and invited the applicant to meet with the College, in particular, to discuss “the different learning styles of College students versus University students, as well as the different teaching strategies within a College setting versus a University setting”.

40The applicant was not satisfied with the College’s response to his complaint, and continued to press for further answers and documentation. The College corresponded with the applicant, and he was again invited to meet with the College to discuss, in further detail, his performance during the job competition process. The applicant declined to avail himself of any of those opportunities.

41The applicant alleged in further correspondence that he had not been treated in accordance with the College’s internal procedure and human rights. He alleged that the response from Ms. Goheen could not properly serve as the “Respondent’s response” to his internal complaint since Mr. Emptage was the Chair of the selection committee and therefore only Mr. Emptage could provide the College’s response.

42The College then requested that Mr. Emptage provide a written response to the applicant’s internal complaint. As a result, on December 7, 2004, Mr. Emptage wrote directly to the applicant and attempted to outline a response to each of the allegations. The College was prohibited by the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 from providing the applicant with all of the particulars related to the superior candidacy of the successful job candidate.

Reprisal Allegations

43As noted above, the applicant made an internal complaint of discrimination in the hiring process. There was a finding that discrimination was not a factor. The applicant submits, however, that this complaint gave rise to reprisal against him. He further submits that the personal respondent, Ms. Betty McCoppen, breached trust to form a conspiracy against the complaint. He submits that Ms. McCoppen deliberately breached the procedure for notifying the committee members reviewing the complaint when she provided each member with a copy of the internal complaint, and that act was a form of reprisal. The applicant submitted that:

1. Mr. Emptage, the Chair of the selection committee, should be the only personal respondent named in the applicant’s internal complaint.
2. In the meeting, the committee members formed a “conspiracy of false witness”. At the beginning of the process Ms. McCoppen plotted to suppress the complaint, to retaliate against the complaint, and to stimulate racial hatred. The real purpose of the meeting was not to resolve the racial discrimination complaint, but was to generate a hostile atmosphere to isolate the applicant and to have all Committee members share responsibility with Mr. Emptage. As a result of the meeting, it is the applicant’s view that the committee members had a real and substantial prejudice against the complaint.
3. The finding in respect of the internal complaint that there was no discrimination in the College’s selection for Professor did not address the “essential” question, and “sneers a reply”.
4. When the personal respondent, Mr. Emptage, needed to respond to the internal complaint, he should have only used existing materials. However, a document entitled “Results of Ranking from Selection Committee question” was given to the committee members. The applicant alleges “that document was fabricated in order to terrify the applicant and retaliate against the applicant”.

44The College denies the applicant’s allegations that he was discriminated against or that he experienced a reprisal as a result of the internal complaint he filed.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

45Discrimination based upon age, place of origin, and race can take on subtle and covert forms with seemingly benign criteria imposing arbitrary and discriminatory barriers. Subtle forms of discrimination can often only be detected upon examining all of the circumstances. Individual acts themselves may be ambiguous or explained away, but when viewed as part of the larger picture may lead to an inference that racial discrimination was a factor. See: Smith v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) [2005] O.J. No. 377 (Ont. Div. Ct.), 2005 CanLII 2811 (ON S.C.D.C.); Abdolalipour v. Allied Chemical Canada Ltd (1996), C.H.R.R. Doc. 96-153 (Ont. Bd. Inq.).

46Notwithstanding the many subtleties that may be ascribed to determining whether there was discrimination based on age, place of origin, and race, the applicant must establish a prima facie case of discrimination on a balance of probabilities. If the applicant proves discrimination on a balance of probabilities, only then will the respondents be required to prove a statutory defence or exemption. Therefore, I must first consider whether the applicant has established a prima facie case of discrimination in employment based on age, race or place of origin.

47The applicant alleges that he was treated differently by the respondents during his employment by them and he was discriminatorily denied a position with the College for a full time teaching position in Engineering Technology. I am satisfied with the respondents’ explanation, and find the applicant has not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the respondents discriminated against him based on age, place of origin, or race. Nor has the applicant established that the respondents engaged in actions or threats intended to reprise against him because he claimed, or sought to enforce his rights under the Code.

Did the Respondents Discriminate Against the Applicant During His Employment with the College?

48With respect to the applicant’s allegations that during the time he worked as a lecturer the College treated him differentially on the basis of age, place of origin and race, I find that the evidence does not support this allegation. The evidence was clear that the applicant’s employment as a partial load employee lecturer was covered by the Academic Collective Agreement between the College and OPSEU. The evidence was also clear that he was given each time he taught at the College, including during his sessional lecturer appointment his PPF setting out the total hours to be worked per week, the rate of pay per hour, and courses to be taught. With the PPFs he was given as a partial-load employee, he was also given a memorandum outlining an election to enrol in the group benefits for partial load employees. The applicant was unable to explain how his allegations that he had no written contract, no benefits, was paid less than others and never advised of his rights under the collective agreement are made out in light of these facts. On a balance of probabilities, I find the applicant has failed to establish that he experienced any differential treatment based on any Code protected ground with respect to the terms and conditions of his employment.

49Further, there was no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s claim that he was not paid for instruction work for the independent study of the two students, and, as such, no basis to ground the applicant’s reprisal allegation in relation to the independent study work. He was paid $520.00 for one on one teaching of two students in an independent study course. He believes that he is still owed $2,805.04. He did not produce a written contract or provide a description of discussions that would lead him to reasonably believe that he would be paid for a class with several students and lectureship. The applicant further indicated that the respondent advised him that his pay would be withheld until he submitted student marks. When those marks were submitted he was paid in a timely manner. Based on there being no evidence such as a contract, corroborating witnesses or unexplained delays in payment to the applicant, I find that the respondents acted in a reasonable manner and without reprisal.

Did the Respondents Discriminate Against the Applicant when he was not Selected for the Full Time Faculty Position?

50I am satisfied that although the applicant was short listed by the College and invited to an interview in order to compete for the position in question his answers during the interview and during the mock teaching assignment allowed the selection committee to reasonably conclude that his application was inferior to the successful candidate. This was based on objective criteria applied to each candidate. Age was not known and therefore was not a factor in the decision. Neither race nor place of origin formed part of the assessment, and were not factors in the choice of candidates. Ultimately, although unrelated, the person who was awarded the position was a member of a racial minority. Furthermore, should student feedback have become a factor in the hiring process through a reference check I accept the respondents’ submission that the applicant would have been precluded from successfully competing for the position due to his consistent poor student feedback. As a result, I find that the applicant has not satisfied me that he experienced discrimination in the selection of the Professor, Mechanical Engineering – Automotive Manufacturing position because of his age, place of origin or race.

Did the Respondents Reprise Against the Applicant?

51Section 8 of the Code, which prohibits reprisals or threat of reprisals, states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.

52To successfully make out a claim of reprisal, an applicant must demonstrate that they experienced reprisal for:

• claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code: or
• refusing to infringe the right of another person.

53The applicant alleges that he attempted to enforce his rights under the Code and suffered reprisals as a consequence. I find that the respondents did not commit reprisal against the applicant when he filed an internal complaint of discrimination. They acted according to the College`s investigation procedures and the rules of natural justice. The investigation and decision of the committee was unbiased and fair in its analysis and conclusion. The investigator and committee considered whether race was a factor in the decision to award the position to another candidate. If there was a breach of the human rights policy, they were prepared to act upon that information. Drawing a conclusion that the applicant did not like does not constitute reprisal.

54The applicant was also offered sessional lectureship position after he filed his human rights complaint at the College. This was not to create “cheap labour” as the applicant alleges, but rather the best option after he was the unsuccessful candidate for full time professor. That also does not demonstrate reprisal.

55Accordingly, I do not find that the applicant has demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents breached the Code by discriminating against him based on age, place of origin, or race, and there was no reprisal. The Application is dismissed.