HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeffrey McLennon
Applicant
-and-
York University
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: McLennon v. York University
1This Application was filed on January 5, 2010, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), against York University, Linda Lakats, Lewis Cassar and Mavis Lam. This matter is scheduled for a hearing on the merits in Toronto on January 23 and 24, 2012.
2In a previous Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 2128, issued on November 24, 2011 (the “November 2011 Interim Decision”), the Tribunal ordered the removal of Linda Lakats and Lewis Cassar as personal respondents.
3The applicant has requested that the Tribunal compel the University to disclose Ms. Lam’s personal contact information to the Tribunal for the purpose of service of documents. The University opposes this Request on the basis that this is private information. The University also opposes the applicant’s Request on the basis that Ms. Lam is not a proper respondent in this Application because she was not providing a service to the applicant.
4The November 2011 Interim Decision also ordered the applicant to file submissions on whether Ms. Lam is a proper respondent to the Application and whether the allegations against Ms. Lam raise an issue of equal treatment with respect to “goods, services and facilities” under the Code. The applicant did not file any submissions.
5The allegations raised in the Application against Ms. Lam, who is a student at the Univeristy, are that she refused to let the applicant participate in a group assignment in class and that she used a racial epithet to describe the applicant.
ANALYSIS
6In Mehedi v. George Brown College, 2010 HRTO 1486 (“Mehedi”), the Tribunal states at paragraph 4-6:
The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate relationships between individuals, or to inquire into all claims of unfairness or misbehaviour. It hears applications that allege violations of the Code.
Under s. 1, every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.
There are no facts suggesting that the personal respondent was responsible for the provision of any educational services to the applicant. The Tribunal has found in similar circumstances that the Code does not cover allegations of discrimination or harassment made against fellow classmates: see Theisen v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 1781, and Tohidy v. Mckenzie, 2009 HRTO 2264. Although under the Code, harassment by co-workers or co-tenants can give rise to claims against those individuals, there is no specific provision covering claims of harassment against fellow classmates.
7Based a review of the Application and the allegations made against Ms. Lam, the Tribunal finds that Ms. Lam was not providing any services to the applicant as contemplated by the Code. As such, I agree with the reasoning in Mehidi, that the Code does not apply to allegations of discrimination between fellow classmates.
ORDER
8The Tribunal orders that Ms. Lam is removed as a respondent to the Application and the style of cause shall be amended accordingly to remove her name. Since Ms. Lam is no longer a party to these proceedings, the Tribunal declines to order the respondent to disclose her personal contact information.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of January, 2012.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair