Yaziciyan v. Centennial College – Progress Campus, 2013 HRTO 1890

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Berc Yaziciyan

Applicant

-and-

Centennial College - Progress Campus and Micol Kates and Janet Haist and Emily Donville and Paul Kinnis

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: November 13, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1890

Indexed as: Yaziciyan v. Centennial College – Progress Campus

APPEARANCES

Berc Yaziciyan, Applicant

Self-represented

Centennial College – Progress Campus, Respondent

Nancy Fisher, Representative

Micol Kates, Respondent

No one appearing

Janet Haist, Respondent Emily Donville, Respondent Paul Kinnis, Respondent

Self-represented Self-represented No one appearing

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of age.

2At the beginning of 2010 the applicant started classes at the respondent college. He was enrolled under the Second Career Opportunity program approved by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. The personal respondents are all professors at the college and all taught the applicant.

3The applicant had difficulties with his coursework. On June 8, 2010 the college sent him a letter that advised him he was on academic probation. The letter also cautions him about his conduct in dealing with professors and advises him about how to appropriately indicate any disagreements he may have with the way any given professor deals with an issue raised by him. The letter also provides him with information about the academic supports available to him.

4A second letter, dated October 18, 2011 notes that he was placed on academic suspension at the end of the summer 2010 semester. The letter outlines the options open to him so that he can resume his studies. It also sets out what resources the college can make available to assist him if he were to re-enrol.

5The applicant alleges that his academic difficulties are due to the unfair treatment he received at the hands of the personal respondents and the college administration. Appended to his Application is a 44 page narrative. It outlines in great detail his account of his interactions with the personal respondents and college administrators. Subsequent submissions by the applicant reiterate and amplify the same allegations.

6Regarding his dealings with the personal respondents, the applicant’s allegations can be broadly summarised as claims that he was treated differently from other students, treated unfairly in that his class contributions were not respected, treated with suspicion in that he was separated from other students because it was assumed that he would copy their work, and treated in a demeaning way in that the personal respondents would speak to him in a disrespectful and abusive manner.

7Regarding the college administrators, it is alleged that they were unresponsive to the applicant’s concerns, that they delayed in dealing with them and that they automatically sided with the personal respondents without regard for the merits of the applicant’s concerns.

8On the face of the allegations there is no connection between the alleged conduct of the respondents and the claimed ground of age discrimination. For this reason the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine if the Application has any reasonable prospect of success.

9In the course of the hearing I asked the applicant to explain how his allegations of unfair treatment by the respondents are linked to his age. He maintained that because he was older than most of the students in his classes and because he was treated badly by both his professors and the college administration, he must have been discriminated against because of his age.

10I indicated to the applicant that I understood this to be his belief, but I asked him what evidence he could provide to support this belief. He indicated that he had no proof and that his allegations were not capable of being proven, as the respondents would be careful not to leave any trace of evidence of discrimination, but that the allegations were nonetheless true.

11As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights.

12In the absence of any evidence to support his theory, the applicant’s claim that the respondents’ unfair treatment of him was because of his age is simply speculation. This is not sufficient basis to satisfy the onus on a summary hearing of highlighting evidence that links the alleged discriminatory conduct to a prohibited ground under the Code. I accept that he holds a sincere belief that he was discriminated against because of age, but the Tribunal adjudicates Applications on the basis of evidence and not belief. As the applicant has not pointed to any evidence that could link the respondents’ delivery of academic services to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code, I conclude that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

order

13The Application is dismissed.