HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N :
Fatoumata Keita
Applicant
-and-
Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario
Respondent
DEcision
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debane
Indexed as: Keita v. Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario
APPEARANCES
Fatoumata Keita, applicant ) On her own behalf
Ordre des enseignantes et des ) Lai-King Hum, Counsel
enseignants de l’Ontario, Respondent )
1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) which alleges discrimination in employment, services, and membership in a vocational association on the basis of place of origin. The respondent Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario (“l’Ordre”) filed a Response denying the allegations in the Application.
2In a Case Assessment Direction dated November 8, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held in order to determine whether there was a reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed at a hearing.
3Both parties participated in the summary hearing held by telephone conference on March 5, 2012.
Background
4The applicant is from West Africa. She asserts that her application for membership in l’Ordre was treated in a discriminatory manner based on her place of origin. The applicant had studied in Germany and had to have some documents translated into an official language: either French and/or English. The applicant claims that she had to send the same documents back to the respondent numerous times. The applicant claims that she lost a teaching position because of this delay.
5The applicant states that on January 14, 2011 she sent documents to l’Ordre. On March 8, 2011 she called a representative of the respondent to enquire whether the documents she had sent had been received. She was advised that l’Ordre had not received the documents. However, on March 14, 2011 the applicant received correspondence from the respondent requesting that the German document be translated into an official language which is proof that her document had in fact been received. The applicant takes the position that this document had already been translated into an official language since the English document was an exact copy of the German document which was sent at the same time, and that this demand was therefore unreasonable. After the applicant filed this Application, l’Ordre granted her a temporary license and she was advised of this by email.
6The applicant advised that she would be able to produce a witness who is of a different place of origin, who had studied in Germany, and who had not had the same delay in the processing of her application. During the telephone conference the applicant stated that this witness had applied to l’Ordre at least five years before. The applicant also relies on Nemati v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2010 HRTO 1808 (“Nemati”).
7In response the respondent takes the position that L’Ordre is not responsible for the translation of documents. It asserts that there were a number of reasons for the delay, including that the documents had originally been received by l’Ordre by email which it could not accept, and some of the German documents were not accompanied by an official translation. Further, l’Ordre receives 12,000 applications per year and there was a delay in scanning the documents received in January 2011 into the electronic system.
Decision
8Details 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.
9Having considered the submissions of the parties and having reviewed the pleadings, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success for the reasons that follow.
10In Nemati the applicant’s application could not be considered by l’Ordre because he could not obtain original documents from Iran. The Tribunal found at paragraph 20:
I find that the College’s insistence on original documents from granting institutions in Iran, given Mr. Nemati’s individual circumstances and reasons for having left his place of origin, his status as a Convention refugee from that place of origin and the possibility of harm to his remaining family in his place of origin should his request for documents come to the attention of the authorities, constitutes discrimination by reason of place of origin contrary to the Code.
11The circumstances in Nemati are very different from those before me. In Nemati, the College in that case refused to consider an application because the individual was unable to provide original documents. Here, the applicant asserts that a delay in processing her application amounted to discrimination on the basis of her place of origin. I find that the applicant has not suggested any proposed evidence which could reasonably establish that l’Ordre treated her unequally in the processing of her application because of her place of origin. Though the applicant alleges that she was treated unfairly by l’Ordre and that unreasonable requests and delays occurred in the processing of her application, there is no reasonable proposed evidence which could establish that such delays did not occur with respect to applications made by individuals with a different place of origin, or that she was singled out because of her place of origin.
12The evidence of the applicant’s proposed witness and the manner of the processing of her application approximately five years ago, even if admitted by the Tribunal as admissible evidence, could not in itself reasonably support a finding that the applicant’s application was treated in a discriminatory manner because of her place of origin.
13As such the Application is dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.
Dated in Toronto, this 20^th^ day of March, 2012
______ »signed by »____________________
Geneviève Debane
Vice-chair