Norma Lowe Klein v. College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, 2014 HRTO 1525

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Norma Lowe Klein

Applicant

-and-

College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 10, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1525

Indexed as: Klein v. College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario

APPEARANCES

Norma Lowe Klein, Applicant

Self-represented

College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, Respondent

Julie Maciura, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of family status.

2In this Application the applicant alleges that she was randomly audited by the respondent and her record keeping was found to be deficient. Ultimately the applicant’s licence was suspended. The applicant appears to have appealed her suspension. The applicant alleges that she was treated differently than other dental hygienists in her office.

3There are other allegations in the Application related to the hearing process before the respondent’s disciplinary proceeding but as will be discussed below these are not allegations which the applicant sought to pursue.

4In a Case Assessment Direction the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether all or part of the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. A summary hearing was held by telephone conference call on September 16, 2014. Both parties participated although given the applicant’s position prior to and at the summary hearing I did not call on the respondent which made only brief comment in response to a question from the applicant.

5The Application is dimissed.

6The central allegation of the applicant is that she was treated differently in respect of an audit conducted by the respondent. The applicant claims that her record keeping was superior than others in her office and that her treatment in comparison to her colleagues was unfair. In the Application, as indicated above, the applicant asserted that this discriminatory treatment was unfair.

7Despite this in several submissions of the applicant in anticipation of the summary hearing the applicant argued that her case has nothing do with her employment or her family status but was about the fact she was treated differently than others and this was unfair.

8From her Reply filed on May 30, 2014:

This is not about discrimination with respect to employment because of my family status. It is about how the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario chose to discriminate against me with regards to my record keeping and documentation in the dental practice in which I was employed. If the assessors hired by the College were to look at the charts of the other hygienists in my dental practice and compared their record keeping to mine, they would clearly see the other hygienists’ notes are not nearly as detailed as mine.

And later from the same document:

I have to agree that the fact that I have a teenage son is totally irrelevant to my failure to keep dental hygiene records that meet the minimum standards of the profession or to my failure to comply with the remedial order of the ICRC of the [respondent]. Once again, I reiterate the fact that this is not what this issue is about. It is about the discrimination towards me by the [respondent] and how I was treated unfairly in comparison to my colleagues in my office. There is evidence of discrimination by the [respondent] against me and not my colleagues. It has absolutely nothing to do with family status or the fact that I have a teenage son...

9At the summary hearing I clarified with the applicant the nature of her claim and attempted to explain the difference between unfair treatment and discrimination under the Code. The applicant conceded that she could draw no connection between what she believes was unfair treatment of her by the College and her family status and any other of the protected grounds. On the contrary she confirmed her submission that it had nothing to do with the fact that she was a mother or a spouse – her family status at the time. I asked the applicant if she believed that she was treated differently than her colleagues in whole or on part because of any of the Code protected grounds and she confirmed that she did not. In short there are no facts plead to support the central assertion of the applicant that she was targeted because of her family status or any other of the Code protected grounds.

10For these reasons the Application must be dismissed because there are no allegations of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

11I would also note that the applicant agreed in her written submissions that the disciplinary issues dealt with in the College’s disciplinary proceedings, and which are not connected to the Code grounds cited, were not in fact what her case before the Tribunal was concerned with. Accordingly there is no need to address those issues in this decision.