Anand v. Mohawk College, 2012 HRTO 151

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mohan Anand

Applicant

-and-

Mohawk College and Chris Blackwood

Respondents

DecisION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 19, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 151

Indexed as: Anand v. Mohawk College

1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). In the Application, the applicant alleges that his right to be free from discrimination in employment has been infringed by the respondents.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant had been employed as a Partial Load faculty member on a series of term contracts beginning in 2005. In every subsequent term but one prior to September 2010, the applicant had been offered 10 to 12 hours of teaching time per term, 12 hours being the maximum a Partial Load faculty member can teach. In September 2010 the applicant was offered three hours. In the Application, the applicant alleges that a factor in the decision to only offer him three teaching hours in the Fall of 2010 was racial bias on the part of the individual respondent Chris Blackwood.

3In a Case Assessment Direction dated July 4, 2011 the Tribunal on its initiative directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

4Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure read as follows:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.

5Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8 and 9:

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

6The Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed in an Application, an applicant must be able to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a link between a respondent's alleged actions and a Code ground.

7A summary hearing was held on January 11, 2012 to hear the submissions of the parties.

ANALYSIS

8The issue for determination is whether there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove on a balance of probabilities, a link between the decision of the respondents to only offer him three hours of teaching time in September 2010 as opposed the more typical offering of 10 to 12 hours per term.

9Although the applicant relies on an alleged assurance at the time of his hiring that so long as their was work he and the other partial load would be offered teaching work in perpetuity, it is clear on the material that there was no guarantee of work from term to term. Irrespective of the terms of this employment relationship the question for the Tribunal is whether or not a factor in the decision making in September 2010 was the applicant's race and colour as he alleges.

10The applicant has no direct evidence of discrimination on the respondents' part. Rather the applicant relies on a number of factors which he claims suggest that there can be no other explanation for the decision other than his race and colour. The applicant argues that there can be no other reasonable explanation for not being offered his more typical contract having regard to his qualifications; length of service to the college; experience as a teacher; student evaluations of his work and his contribution to the college. The applicant also stated that the individuals who were offered more work were less experienced than he, however at the hearing the applicant clarified that he knew little about the experience or qualifications of the individuals who got more work than he, but was referring to their experience at the College. The applicant stated that he believed that the respondents should offer work to those with experience at Mohawk first before hiring new individuals.

11In his Application the applicant stated that he suspected that there was an element of racial bias in Mr. Blackwood's decision based on the following allegations:

During student promotion meetings over which Mr. Blackwood presided, he ignored the applicant's presence and while he invited comments from other staff he paid little attention to the applicant's remarks about students whose promotion was being discussed.

Mr. Blackwood would not acknowledge the applicant when he raised his hand for his attention during promotion meetings.

When the applicant met with Mr. Blackwood in July 2010 enquiring about work in the Fall session, he pretended that he did not know the applicant and asked the applicant who he was and what his qualifications were. The applicant alleges that while there was nothing wrong with asking for his qualifications, but the applicant claims that Mr. Blackwood would have known who he was and that he had been teaching Mathematics for quite some time.

The applicant also alleges that he reminded Mr. Blackwood that a number of students had spoken to him about my good teaching and that he had confirmed to these students that he understood that the applicant was a good teacher. The applicant alleges that Mr. Blackwood claimed not to remember any such conversation with students.

12The respondents have offered a reasonable, non-discriminatory explanation for the decision but much of it is disputed by the applicant and would require evidence to establish. Briefly stated the respondents claim that their decision to offer the applicant only three hours of work in September 2010 was based on a number of factors in particular the following: a substantial reduction in the need for Partial Load teaching hours as a consequence of departmental reorganization just concluded in mid 2010; some level of concern with the applicant's teaching skill – based on student feed back those who were offered more hours were perceived by students as being superior teachers. The respondent also stated that because there was less work available because of the re-organization referred to earlier some Partial Load faculty were not offered any work in the Fall of 2010 whereas the applicant was offered three hours.

13The test in a Rule 19A adjudication is whether, assuming the allegations of the applicant can be proven, there is no reasonable prospect that the Application can succeed. In this case I find that even assuming that the allegations of the applicant can be proved there is still nothing linking the decisions of Mr. Blackwood, or, more importantly the allegations set out in paragraph 11 above, to the applicant's colour and race.

14At the hearing I asked the applicant to elaborate on the allegations that formed the basis of his view that Mr. Blackwood was biased against him because of his race and colour. Mr. Anand's responses were exceedingly vague and impressionistic. In my view even if these vague allegations were accepted they establish no linkage with the applicant's race or colour.

15In his Application, the applicant states in several places that he believes or he suspects that Mr. Blackwood has a bias against persons of his colour and race. However to engage the Tribunal's processes and to require a respondent to respond to the merits in this process more is required than a belief however sincerely held. I am satisfied that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant can point to no evidence linking the decision to offer him only three hours of work in September 2010 to his race or colour.

16For these reasons the Application is dismissed.