Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Mary Ferrari Applicant
-and-
University of Toronto Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: November 19, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1672 Indexed as: Ferrari v. University of Toronto
Appearances
Mary Ferrari, Applicant Self-represented
University of Toronto, Respondent Sari Springer, Counsel
1This Application alleges that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of disability when it refused to remove a no trespass letter barring the applicant from the University campus. The Application also alleged discrimination on the basis of age and ethnic origin.
2The applicant attended the University as an undergraduate student and graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce degree in 1986.
3As a result of the applicant’s conduct in a period from approximately the mid-1990s up to 2000, the respondent issued a “no trespass” letter. The applicant's conduct caused increasing concern for the respondent and the police became involved. A court-ordered peace bond was issued for a one year period from March 2009 to March 2010.
4In about September 2010, the applicant had a meeting with the respondent’s campus police. She advised that she wished to attend classes at the University and that she wanted the no trespass letter lifted. The campus police agreed to lift the letter but after consultations with people who had been more directly involved in the earlier circumstances, the no trespass status was reinstated.
5In September 2011, the applicant again raised her status with the respondent. The respondent told the applicant that it would require a forensic psychiatric risk assessment “indicating essentially a zero risk” before a change in status would be contemplated.
6In November 2011, the applicant submitted a letter from Dr. Samuel Packer, her treating psychiatrist. Dr. Packer advised that he had been treating the applicant since 2010 and that she had been compliant with treatment recommendations and that in his opinion, the applicant was not a threat to anyone.
7The Application was filed on February 26, 2013. Essentially, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her when it refused to accept Dr. Packer’s advice and to allow her to attend the University. She alleged that the respondent was presuming that the disability that she had earlier, and that meant that she could not attend, was continuing. She alleged that the requirement for a forensic psychiatric assessment was not reasonable and was discriminatory. She also alleged that the earlier no trespass order was also discriminatory.
8The Tribunal continued to process the Application and hearing dates were scheduled in October 2014.
9Prior to those dates, a telephone conference call hearing was scheduled to deal with various matters. At that time, the applicant withdrew her allegation against a personal respondent since he had not personally discriminated against her. The respondent raised a concern about releasing the documents in its possession relevant to the issues because they might prove disturbing to the applicant. The timeliness of the Application was also discussed.
10In Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 644, I dismissed the allegations relating to events prior to 2012 for the reasons set out in that Interim Decision. With respect to the issue of the disclosure of the respondent’s documents, I confirmed arrangements that were discussed and agreed to during the telephone conference call hearing:
- The respondent will send a package of the documents that it is concerned about to Dr. Packer. The respondent will ask Dr. Packer to review the documents and provide his opinion about whether he has any concerns as the applicant's treating psychiatrist if any of the documents were to be released to the applicant.
- If Dr. Packer has no concerns about the release of the documents to the applicant, the respondent may release the documents to the applicant and the Tribunal.
- If Dr. Packer does have concerns about any or all of the documents, he will outline the nature of that concern in a letter to the respondent. The respondent will provide a copy of that letter to the Tribunal and the Tribunal will then issue further direction.
11Dr. Packer received and reviewed the documents and prepared a report dated July 22, 2014. He advised that prior to his review of the documents, he was not aware of the extent of the applicant’s difficulties with the respondent and what they entailed. He recommended that the documents not be released to the applicant as there was a health and safety concern. Dr. Packer indicated that many of the symptoms the applicant had earlier experienced were continuing. He believes that the applicant has some insight regarding the causes of her symptoms but little insight into the seriousness of her interactions with the respondent.
12This information raised a question of whether the applicant would be able to prove her allegations of discrimination with respect to the respondent’s actions in 2012 when it refused to let her attend the University without a forensic psychiatric assessment. I therefore directed that a summary hearing by telephone conference call be scheduled to determine if the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
13Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure allows the Tribunal to dismiss an Application in whole or in part if there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to show that the discrimination alleged in the Application occurred.
14The telephone conference call hearing was held on October 21, 2014.
15During the hearing, the applicant indicated that she recognizes that she may have made an inappropriate comment to a University faculty member on one or two occasions. She said that she now has good insight into why this happened and believes that the problem is well controlled. In regards to Dr. Packer’s comments in his recent report, the applicant indicated that his comments may be based on outdated information about her.
Analysis and Conclusions
16The issue in this Application is whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability or presumed disability when it asked the applicant to provide a forensic psychiatric opinion about her ability to register as a student and to establish that there would be no health and safety risk if she were to attend the University.
17The applicant’s position is that the report that she submitted from Dr. Packer in November 2011 should have been sufficient to allow the respondent to lift the trespass letter and to allow her to attend the University.
18In considering this matter, I have not seen the documents that the respondent sent to Dr. Packer for his review.
19It is apparent that the respondent had legitimate concerns about whether the applicant's past conduct meant that it could safely allow her to attend the University. The Application filed by the applicant relied on Dr. Packer’s report of November 2011, which provided some support for the applicant’s position that there was no risk if she were allowed to attend the University. Dr. Packer has now clarified that he was not aware of the nature and extent of the applicant’s previous conduct. He has also indicated that many of the symptoms the applicant had earlier experienced were continuing. Dr. Packer’s recent report is based on a fuller understanding of the actual circumstances. He has now changed the opinion he offered in 2011. As a result, there is very little support for her contention that the respondent should have accepted that her previous issues and any concerns about her conduct had resolved.
20At the summary hearing, the applicant indicated that the evidence to support her allegation will be her evidence about the nature of her interactions with people at the university and her opinion that the nature of those interactions posed no