HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Fatoumata Keita Applicant
-and-
Qualification Evaluation Council of Ontario and Ken Collins Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Date: July 16, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1039
Indexed as: Keita v. Qualification Evaluation Council of Ontario
APPEARANCES
Fatoumata Keita, Applicant Self-represented
Qualification Evaluation Council of Ontario and Ken Collins, Respondents William W. Markle, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of place of origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant self identifies as a “francophone woman of ethno-cultural minority” [TRANSLATION]. The respondents filed a Response denying that the applicant’s Code rights were breached.
2On December 9, 2013, the Tribunal directed of its own initiative that a Summary Hearing would be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
3The Summary Hearing was held on April 17, 2014, and continued on May 16, 2014. The services of a French-English interpreter were made available to the parties.
4For the reasons that follow the Application is dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.
Background
5The Qualification Evaluation Council of Ontario (“QECO”) is an association of three teachers’ unions which evaluates teacher’s qualifications. There are four possible placement categories ranging from the lowest A1 to the highest A4. The category that the teacher is placed in will determine the pay grade that the teacher is entitled to pursuant to the collective agreement in place in the workplace. Ken Collins is the Executive Director of the QECO.
6The applicant filed applications with the QECO seeking to have her scholastic credentials evaluated, some of which were obtained in Germany. She alleges in her Application and in her submissions to the Tribunal that the respondents discriminated against her in the processing of her application at the QECO in which she received a placement of A2. She believes that Mr. Collins, in a letter dated February 27, 2012, made blatant lies and falsified information about the length of her education in Germany, and misidentified when Germany was reunited and the name of the university that she graduated from in Germany. She also takes the position that her internal complaints and appeals were not processed fairly, including that initial decision-makers should no longer be involved because they were in conflicts of interest.
7The applicant believes that the degree she obtained in a German University was the equivalent of a Master’s degree from a Canadian University, and that she should have been placed above the A2 category. She also takes the position that the mechanisms in place to evaluate a teacher’s educational qualifications discriminate against individuals who have obtained foreign degrees.
8The Application which was filed on April 24, 2013 indicated that though her appeal with the Affiliates Committee had been filed over a year before, she had not gotten any response from this committee because she asserted that Mr. Collins failed to submit an appeal letter on her behalf. In its Response filed on July 23, 2013, the respondents indicated that in fact the matter had been referred to the Affiliates Committee and it had dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Affiliates Committee’s decision and reasons are contained in a letter dated November 21, 2012, which states in part:
The conclusion of the Affiliates Committee was under Program 5 any single first degree with twenty or more full time courses but with an overall standing of less than B- or which does not satisfy the requirements of the Advanced Baccalaureate Credit can merit no greater placement than Category A2. This is just as true of Ontario degrees as it is of degrees granted outside of Ontario and internationally.
The only university degree used for evaluation exclusive of teacher training was the Diplom with less than a B- average; therefore, the category A2 placement you were originally issued will remain.
9During the first day of the Summary Hearing it became clear that the applicant did not have a copy of this letter and that the respondent did not have a copy of an email which was included in the Application at the Tribunal. Further, the parties were referring to documents that had not been filed with the Tribunal. Since it was already noon at that point and the respondents had not yet had the opportunity to make submissions, I decided that it would be appropriate to adjourn the Summary Hearing to permit the exchange of documents.
10In their submissions, the respondents take the position that there has been no discrimination in this case. Further, they assert that the applicant’s application was processed in the same manner as any other and that it had difficulty sending letters to the applicant because she would not pick up her registered mail. The respondents also take the position that there is no discrimination in this case, because even if the applicant’s studies had occurred in Canada instead of Germany the applicant still would have been placed in the A2 category because she obtained less than a B- average.
Decision
11Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, see especially at paras. 8 and 9.
12In this matter the applicant alleges two types of general allegations of discrimination. The first is that there is direct discrimination because she believes that her application before the QECO was not processed in the same manner as those of other individuals. The applicant makes a number of allegations with respect to the processing of her application, which are detailed above. However, the Tribunal does not have a supervisory role over these types of general allegations of unfairness unless there is a link to the Code. It is clear that the applicant and the respondents do not agree about the applicant’s educational qualifications. However, the applicant must be able to link her alleged unfair treatment to her place of origin. In this matter, the applicant has not suggested or proposed any evidence which could reasonably lead the Tribunal to conclude that the respondents’ conduct or actions were undertaken because of her place of origin.
13The second allegation of discrimination is that the manner in which the QECO assesses foreign qualifications has an adverse impact on teachers who have obtained foreign degrees. However, the documentary evidence supports that the applicant was placed in the A2 category because she received less than a B- in her foreign degree. Though the applicant spent considerable time establishing that she had the equivalent of a Master’s degree, in the end this is not relevant because she would still not have been placed in a higher category because of her grade. During the hearing the applicant stated that she knew someone who had obtained her degree in Canada who had been placed in a higher category; however, the applicant did not know her final grade.
14In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicant has any evidence to support that the QECO’s assessment of her educational qualifications had an adverse impact on her because she has a foreign degree.
Other Issue
15I also want to address the allegations made throughout this proceeding that the respondents discriminated against her because they filed correspondence with the Tribunal in English and not in French. The Tribunal’s Rules permit the parties to file documents and otherwise communicate with the Tribunal in either French or English:
A6.1 Individuals may provide written materials to the tribunal in either English or French.
A6.2 Individuals may participate in tribunal proceedings in English, French, American Sign Language (ASL) or Quebec Sign Language (QSL).
16It is not discriminatory for parties to avail themselves of this right.
Order
17The Application is dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of July, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair