HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Dawit Tuquabo
Applicant
-and-
University of Ottawa
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Tuquabo v. University of Ottawa
Oral SUBMISSIONS BY
Dawit Tuquabo, Applicant ) Self-Represented
University of Ottawa, Respondent ) Alain Roussy, Counsel
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 29, 2009, which alleges that the organizational respondent, University of Ottawa, and 12 individual respondents discriminated against him with respect to services, goods and facilities because of his race, colour and place of origin.
2In an Interim Decision dated March 3, 2010 (the “Interim Decision”), the Tribunal removed all of the individual respondents, with the exception of John Basso, on the basis that it was plain and obvious on the face of the Application that the allegations against these individual respondents did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal found at paragraph 2 of the Interim Decision that:
In his Application, the applicant, who is or was a student at the University of Ottawa, alleges that the respondents treated him unfairly with respect to academic matters. The Application contains general statements about “overt systemic academic apartheid”, “equality under the code”, and “overt & subtle discrimination”, but with the exception of one allegation of discrimination against Mr. Basso, does not explain how 11 of the 12 individual respondents discriminated against him because of Code-related grounds.
3At mediation on December 6, 2010, the applicant settled the Application as against the remaining individual respondent John Basso.
4In a Case Assessment Direction dated September 13, 2011, the Tribunal granted the respondent’s Request for Summary Hearing and stated at paragraph 3:
Details 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.
5A half-day summary hearing by teleconference was held on December 12, 2011, in which all remaining parties, the applicant and counsel for the University of Ottawa participated. This Interim Decision addresses whether this Application should be dismissed on a summary basis as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Argument of the parties
6During the conference call the applicant did not provide any additional information or evidence that he intends to rely upon during the course of the hearing other than referring the Tribunal to the numerous documents which were attached to his Application. The applicant is unhappy with the grades that he received and his treatment for over five years and wants the Tribunal to order the respondent to reimburse him for his tuition.
7It was the respondent’s position that the Interim Decision found that the allegations against the 11 individual respondents did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Code and it was appropriate for the Tribunal to conclude that similarly these allegations should be dismissed as against the University. With respect to the alleged conduct of Mr. Basso, the respondent argued that since this matter had been settled between the applicant and Mr. Basso the Application should not proceed against the University. The University did agree that as Mr. Basso’s employer, it had vicarious liability for any alleged discriminatory conduct by him.
8In response, the applicant stated that the matter had only been settled against Mr. Basso and not the University.
Decision
9Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal finds that the Application can proceed but only with respect to the allegations which occurred on March 18 and March 25, 2008, with respect to the BIO3151(Molecular Biology) class.
10With respect to all of the other allegations in the Application, the applicant could not provide any evidence which would link his allegations of unfair treatment to the Code grounds that he alleges. In effect the applicant takes issue with a number of grades that he received, not obtaining equivalencies for other courses taken and makes bald allegations that the respondent’s conduct is contrary to the Code. He did not point to any evidence that would establish a discriminatory reason for the respondent’s conduct. As such all of the other allegations in the Application are dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Order
11The Tribunal Orders as follows:
a. The Registrar will schedule a one-day hearing in Ottawa, to hear the Application but only with respect to the allegations which occurred on March 18 and March 25, 2008, with respect to the BIO3151(Molecular Biology) class; and
b. The remaining allegations in the Application are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of February, 2012.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair