Papanicolopoulou v. University of Windsor, 2015 HRTO 1160

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Papanicolopoulou Applicant

-and-

University of Windsor, Reza Nakhaie, and Robert Arnold Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: September 1, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1160 Indexed as: Papanicolopoulou v. University of Windsor

APPEARANCES

Angela Papanicolopoulou, Applicant Self-represented

University of Windsor, Reza Nakhaie, and Robert Arnold, Respondents Nancy Jammu-Taylor, Counsel

Introduction

1This Decision deals with allegations of reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). Section 8 reads as follows:

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

2The applicant was a student enrolled in the respondent University's graduate study PhD program until she was required to withdraw from the program in December 2012 because she had not completed the program despite receiving extended time to do so.

3The applicant unsuccessfully appealed the academic decision that she had to withdraw through the University's process up to and including the University Senate. In June 2013, she also made a complaint to the University's Office of Human Rights. The complaint was investigated and in June 2014, the Investigator ultimately concluded that the applicant's allegations were not supported. In September 2014, after the conclusion of the appeal process and the completion of the internal human rights process, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal which made substantially the same allegations as were made in the internal process. Specifically, the applicant alleged discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, ethnic origin, gender identity, and age.

4The applicant alleged that Professor Nakhaie, who was the Chair of her committee, discriminated against her and that this discrimination was a reason why she had not been able to complete her dissertation.

5The allegation of discrimination relates to comments that Professor Nakhaie allegedly made to the applicant. Specifically, the applicant alleges that on one occasion, Professor Nakhaie compared her to a parrot. On another occasion he allegedly said that the reason that she was having problems completing her thesis was that she was a woman who was over 40. On another occasion, he allegedly told her that she would be told to leave the University because a Turkish student had been told to leave and it was known that Turkish people are smarter than Greek people like the applicant. On another occasion, he allegedly asked her about her sexual orientation and then laughed when she refused to answer. The applicant believes that these alleged comments show that Professor Nakhaie was prejudiced against her on the grounds of place of origin, ethnic origin, gender identification, and age.

6This allegation is strongly denied by the respondents, who submit that the reason the applicant did not complete the program was that she had not been able to develop a dissertation that could be successfully defended, despite trying for many years.

7The applicant also alleged that she had been reprised against. The first allegation of reprisal concerns a conversation with Robert Arnold, who is another professor in the department of Sociology. The applicant alleges that in July 2013, Professor Arnold told her that Professor Nakhaie was prepared to publish a paper with her based on her research, so as to salvage the work that she had done, but only if he she withdrew the human rights complaint against him. At the time, the complaint was with the internal Office of Human Rights and the Application had not yet been filed.

8Dr. Arnold denies that this conversation occurred. He also denies that he ever talked about the applicant's human rights issues with Dr. Nakhaie, or that they ever discussed the idea of the applicant writing a paper with Dr. Nakhaie. He also asserts that he had no knowledge of the details of the applicant's human rights issues.

9In 2014-15, the applicant tried to re-apply to the program at the University. Her application was denied and the applicant alleges that this decision was a reprisal for her having made human rights complaints against the university and two of its professors.

10The Application was first heard on May 14, 2015. Following that hearing, I issued Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 754. In that Interim Decision, I noted that the allegations about discriminatory comments allegedly made by Professor Nakhaie were not made within one year of when they allegedly occurred and that those allegations might not be timely in accordance with section 34 of the Code, which provides:

34. (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

11I found that the applicant had not established a good faith explanation for the delay. The allegation or reprisal concerning Professor Arnold was related to a conversation that allegedly occurred in July 2013, which was within the one-year period. I found that if the evidence were to establish that the conversation occurred in the way the applicant says, and if it were found to be a reprisal, then it might be part of a series of events that might include the earlier allegations. In that event, the earlier allegations could be timely.

12I concluded that a hearing was necessary to hear evidence regarding the alleged reprisals.

13The allegation of reprisal related to the applicant's unsuccessful application to return to the University in 2015 required the applicant to ask to amend the Application to include this allegation. The respondent did not object to the amendment. In the Interim Decision, I found that this allegation also required evidence and submissions.

14The hearing accordingly reconvened on August 24, 2015, to hear evidence and submissions about the alleged reprisals in July 2013, involving Professor Arnold, and the allegations of reprisal in regard to the applicant's unsuccessful application to return to the University, which was denied in February 2015. At the reconvened hearing, I heard evidence from the applicant, Professor Arnold, and Professor Gerald Cradock, who was the Chair of the Sociology Department Graduate Studies Committee at the time of the application to return to the University.

Correction about the period of the applicant's enrollment in the university

15In the Interim Decision, I stated that the applicant was enrolled in the PhD program from 2003 to 2012. This is not correct. The applicant first enrolled in the 2004 winter term. She had a leave of absence for one term and was unable to pursue the program for another term because it took most of the term to get her committee organized. She was required to withdraw in December 2012.

Conversation with Professor Arnold

16The applicant has known Professor Arnold for much of her academic career with the respondent. In the latter part of that time, she went to him for advice and support. He has hired her as a researcher on various occasions.

17The applicant and Professor Arnold agree that the applicant spoke to Professor Arnold on many occasions in the period leading up to her withdrawal from the program in December 2012. After that, she spoke to him about her academic appeal options. He advised her to seek legal advice because he knew that the appeal process could be complex. He offered her periods of research work in that time. The applicant testified that he gave her this work because he wanted to support her appeal and knew she didn't have money to hire a lawyer. He testified that he did not hire her to fund her legal challenge, but rather because he needed some research done and knew that she could do it. However, he agreed that he knew she was using the money to hire a lawyer to assist her with her academic appeal.

18The applicant testified that the conversation in question occurred on July 10, 2013. At that time, the applicant's academic appeal was underway and so was the internal human rights investigation. Professor Arnold does not recall a specific conversation on that date, but agrees that he had several discussions with the applicant around that time.

19The applicant alleges that during the conversation, Professor Arnold told her that Professor Nakhaie was prepared to work with her to publish a paper based on her dissertation so that her work could be "salvaged", but that he would only do this if she withdrew her human rights complaint.

20The applicant testified that Professor Arnold told her that if she did not agree to this, she had only two options. The first was to get certified as an English as a Second Language (ESL) instructor and move to China to teach English. The second was to live on welfare in a rooming house with ex-convicts and people with mental disorders. In the complaint to the internal Human Rights Investigator, she said that Professor Arnold told her she would be "on welfare living in rooming houses full of rapists, by drug addicts and mentally ill tenants."

21Professor Arnold testified that he did talk to the applicant about publishing a paper so that her research endeavours would not be wasted. He said that he raised this a few times with the applicant in the months before July 2013. Professor Arnold testified that he might have suggested that Professor Nakhaie might agree to work with the applicant on the paper. However, he said that he never discussed this idea with Professor Nakhaie.

22Professor Arnold denied that any discussion about writing a paper with Professor Nakhaie was in any way tied to the applicant's human rights complaints. He testified that on any occasion when he might have discussed the idea of a paper, he did not know that the applicant had made such a complaint.

23Professor Arnold testified that he heard that the applicant had made a human rights complaint some in the latter part of the summer of 2013. He testified that the applicant said something about it to him but he told her he did not want to know about it. He testified that this was because within the university such matters are supposed to remain confidential. This is consistent with the applicant's evidence which was that Professor Arnold told her he did not want to know anything about it when she tried to tell him about the complaint.

24Professor Arnold testified that he has never discussed anything about any human rights complaint the applicant may have made with Professor Nakhaie.

25Professor Arnold testified that he did talk to the applicant about her obtaining an ESL certificate. He testified that they had such a conversation in around April 2013 and that he told her that even if she was able to get reinstated into the program she might still have difficulties obtaining work in an academic position. He testified that the idea of teaching in China could well have come up during this discussion, because he is aware that there is a large demand for ESL trainers in China. He denied that he said that this was her only viable option. He testified that it was the applicant who brought up the ESL option and that he supported it as something she could look into, and he thought that she did do some research into it.

26On this point, the applicant testified that she did find out what the course would cost. However, she said she did this just to satisfy Professor Arnold and not because she thought taking an ESL course was a good idea. She is sure that the ESL idea was raised by Professor Arnold.

27Professor Arnold testified that he did not tell the applicant that she would otherwise end up on welfare in a rooming house. He said that he was aware that the applicant was in a difficult financial situation. He has knowledge of various programs that are available to people on social services and he may have told her about some such programs.

28In April 2014, the applicant submitted an addendum to the internal human rights complaint, alleging that Professor Arnold had reprised against her by telling her that Professor Nakhaie would publish a paper based on her research if she withdrew her complaint. Professor Arnold found out about this when the Human Rights Investigator contacted him to tell him about it in April 2014. Professor Nakhaie also learned of this allegation when the addendum was presented to him. Both Professor Arnold and Professor Nakhaie denied that any such offer had ever been made or that they had ever had any discussions between them about the applicant's human rights complaint.

29Professor Arnold testified that his involvement with the internal human rights investigation was as a witness who was interviewed by the Investigator. He knew of the allegation that he had passed on an offer from Professor Nakhaie but was not otherwise aware of any of the details of the applicant's allegations, until he received the instant Application in which he was named as a respondent.

The applicant's attempts to be readmitted to the program

30In late 2014, the applicant started a process to try to be admitted to the university again so that she could complete her PhD.

31Professor Cradock testified about how this process works. He agreed that in this case, there may have been some confusion because of the applicant's academic history with the University, but he said that he dealt with the application as if the applicant was a person applying for admission to the program for the first time.

32Professor Cradock testified that an application for a graduate program is made to the Department of Graduate Studies. That Department is responsible for telling applicants what information is required and for assembling the application package. That package is then delivered to the Department Graduate Studies Committee. At the relevant time, he was the Chair of the Sociology Department Graduate Studies Committee so the applicant's package came to him. The Committee has an admissions sub-committee that reviews the packages that come from the Department of Graduate Studies. The sub-committee consisted of Professor Cradock, Professor Arnold, and another colleague in the department.

33Professor Arnold noted a package with the applicant's name on it and realized that she was applying. He recused himself from the sub-committee's consideration of the applicant's application package. He testified that he did this because he had by then been named as a respondent to the instant Application and also in the internal human rights complaint, and he thought it would be better if he was not involved in any decision about the application for re-admission to the University. Professor Arnold testified that he did not tell either of the other members of the sub-committee of the reasons for his recusal. Professor Cradock confirmed this in his testimony although he indicated that he surmised it might have had to do with the applicant's human rights complaints. He testified that he was aware that there was a complaint but even up to the hearing on August 24, 2015, he did not know what it involved. As discussed in more detail below, he found out about the complaint from the Chair of the Sociology department. Professor Arnold was not replaced on the sub-committee so the decision was made by Professor Cradock and the other professor.

34A package for admission to the PhD program has several components. The first is a requirement that the applicant provide three reference letters, at least two of which must relate to the applicant's academic achievements. A second component is a Statement of Interest, outlining what the person wants to pursue in her graduate study. A third component is writing sample.

35In the months preceding the assembling of the applicant's package that went to Professor Cradock, the applicant exchanged a large number of emails with various people. She was trying to get accurate information about what exactly she was required to do. The respondents concede that the applicant was provided with confusing and sometimes conflicting information about what she needed to do. There is no doubt that the applicant's academic history and the fact that she was applying for re-admission after being required to withdraw was a source of much of the confusion.

36There is only one direct reference to the applicant's human rights issues in these emails. However, much of the co-ordination of the application process was done by the human rights investigator from the Human Rights Office.

37The one reference to the applicant's human rights issues is in an email from Professor Cradock. The email is dated August 25, and reads as follows:

Angela,

As I understand it, you are no longer a student at the university and, further, you are currently engaged in a human rights action against the University. Given this state of affairs, it would be inappropriate for me to meet with you outside of that formal process especially as I am now the Graduate Chair. We can meet once the human rights action is completed.

38This email was sent in response to an email from the applicant which indicated that she wished to speak to Professor Cradock. The context for this was that the applicant had been in the department offices to pick something up. She passed by Professor Cradock's office but he was on the phone. She sent the email to explain that she had not wanted to bother him but did want to talk to him. Her email did not say what she wanted to talk about.

39Further context is that the applicant had been in touch with various people, including Professor Barry Adam, who had been a member of the PhD Committee, along with Professor Nakhaie. Professor Adam had told her that it would be a good idea for her to speak with Professor Cradock about her application. The reason that the applicant wanted to speak to Professor Cradock was to talk about her application for re-admission.

40Meanwhile, the Chair of the Sociology Department had told Professor Cradock that the applicant had filed a Human Rights Application. He testified that she did not provide any details about the nature of the Application. As noted earlier, he testified that he still did not know any details about it up to the date of the hearing before me. The Chair had told Professor Cradock that because of the Human Rights Application, he should be cautious about his dealings with the applicant and that he should only deal with her through "formal" channels.

41Professor Cradock testified that when he saw the applicant in the offices and then received her email, he assumed that she wanted to talk to him about her human rights issues, which is why he worded the email in the way he did.

42In the same time period, the applicant was working on obtaining the three reference letters that she needed as part of her application for re-admission. She felt that it would be necessary to have a letter from one of the members of her PhD Committee. She decided that she would not ask Professor Nakhaie. She asked Danielle Soulliere, one of the committee members, but Professor Soulliere had become an Associate Dean and had decided that to avoid any conflict of interest, she would not provide a reference letter for any student. This left Professor Adam. He advised her that he did not think that a reference letter from him would be an asset for her re-admission application because he would necessarily have to include the history of her unsuccessful completion of her thesis. The applicant told him that she wanted a letter anyway. Professor Adam provided a confidential form which was not supportive of the applicant.

43The applicant provided a second letter from a retired professor who had taught a class that she had taken some years earlier. His letter was supportive of the applicant. A third letter was provided from a Professor who the applicant had done research work for. This letter commended the applicant's research skills.

44The applicant provided two writing samples as part of her re-admission package. As found in the package, it is not possible to identify what the samples are. The applicant testified that one of them is a paper that she wrote for a class she took during the PhD program. The other sample is a two-page extract from her thesis. Neither includes a title page to help identify what they are, or even to identify that they are two separate pieces of writing.

45Professor Cradock testified that a person who is applying for a PhD program would be expected to submit a writing sample that demonstrates scholarly proficiency. This could include a published paper or a paper of a quality that could be submitted for publication. He testified that the samples provided by the applicant did not demonstrate this.

46The package also included a Statement of Interest. This was the Statement of Interest that the applicant had submitted when she originally applied to the program in 2004. In the interim, she had completely changed her course of study. Professor Cradock testified that the Statement of Interest identified issues that were no longer current and that no one in the faculty was looking at. The applicant agreed with this as the Statement of Interest that was in the package was about ten years old. The applicant testified that she was shocked to discover that her old Statement of Interest had been included in the package. She said that she had tried to find out if she was required to prepare a new Statement of Interest from the Department of Graduate Studies and she was given to understand that she did not.

47The other document in the package was the applicant's transcript with the University, which showed that she had been required to withdraw from the program.

48In his testimony, Professor Cradock indicated that he took the application package essentially at face value. As a result, he and his colleague considered a package that was to say the least not impressive. While two of the reference letters were positive about the applicant, the letter from Professor Adam, who had worked directly with the applicant as a member of her PhD Committee, was not positive. It was not possible to identify the writing samples and they were not of the sort that would be expected in a package for someone applying to a PhD program. The Statement of Interest reflected an area of interest that was out of date and which no one was pursuing anymore.

49Not surprisingly, Professor Cradock and his colleague each concluded that the applicant could not be accepted. They completed a form and checked two boxes to indicate why the application was rejected. These were "letters of reference not sufficiently supportive" and "no available faculty to supervise student in requested field of research." The applicant then received a letter from the Department of Graduate Studies advising her that her application had been rejected and the reasons for the rejection.

50The applicant's position is that any deficiencies in the package were not her fault. She tried to follow the confusing instructions that she was given and did the best she could to provide the requested information. She believes that any deficiency is due to misinformation. For example, she was told that she did not need to provide an up-to-date Statement of Interest. This made sense to the applicant because she assumed that everyone relevant to her application for re-admission would understand that what she wanted to do was to complete the dissertation that she had been working on. She did not anticipate that her Statement of Interest from ten years earlier would be part of the package.

51I asked Professor Cradock why he did not seek some clarification about the applicant's package. He agreed that the package that he received was quite odd. However, he testified that it is not a normal practice to ask for clarification of a package unless there is something missing from it, for example, if it only has two of the requisite three reference letters.

52Dr. Cradock said that the indication on the form that there was no faculty available to supervise the applicant was with respect to the area of research suggested by the Statement of Interest in the package. He noted that the applicant's actual area of research at the time she had to withdraw from the program was in the statistical area. He said that if this had been identified in the Statement of Interest there were faculty who might have been available. However, he thought there could be problems having anyone agree to work with the applicant because of her academic history. However, these factors were not actually addressed because, on its face, the application package was poor. He testified that the fact that the applicant had filed human rights complaints was not a factor in any of the decisions he made in respect of her application for re-admission.

Reprisal

53As the applicant noted in her submissions, the Tribunal's approach to determining whether a person has been reprised against for having raised human rights issues is set out in Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878, at paragraphs 28-34:

The prohibition against reprisal is an important provision in the Code. Its purpose is to ensure that individuals may "claim and enforce" the fundamental rights embodied in the Code without fear or intimidation. It protects the integrity of the process before the Tribunal, as well as in other complaint procedures that may be established under human rights policies. An individual need not prove that their rights have in fact been infringed to claim protection of section 8. As the Court has said, "Without a strict prohibition against reprisals, the purposes and effectiveness of the statute would be significantly diluted." See: Jones v. Amway of Canada Ltd. (2002), CHRR Doc. 02-177 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), at para. 4.

In order to prove reprisal, a complainant (now an applicant) must establish that the respondent engaged in an action, or threat, which was intended as a retaliation for the claiming or enforcement of a right under the Code. Unlike an allegation of discrimination, where intention is not a necessary element to prove a violation, where reprisal is alleged, the complainant must establish that the action was taken with an intent to punish or retaliate. See: Jones, supra; Jones v. Amway of Canada Ltd., 2001 CanLII 26217 (ON H.R.T.); Ketola v. Value Propane Ltd., 2002 CanLII 46510 (ON HRT), 2002 CanLII 46510 (ON H.R.T.); Moffatt v. Kinark Child & Family Services (1998), 1998 CanLII 29857 (ON HRT), 35 C.H.R.R. D/205 (Ont. Bd. Inq.).

... [I]n many cases, there may be no direct evidence of a respondent's intention to reprise. Reprisal, like discrimination, is rarely practiced openly. However, this does not negate the well- established principle in reprisal cases, nor does it prevent a complainant from proving intent. Intention may be proved by inference, drawn from the whole of the evidence. Longstanding human rights jurisprudence provides that where a complainant has established sufficient facts, which if true, would support a finding that the Code has been violated, the evidentiary onus then shifts to the respondent, to provide a reasonable explanation for the impugned conduct. It then falls to the complainant to provide evidence of why the explanation is not credible, or is a simply a pretext. The Tribunal will examine all of the evidence and determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether a violation of the Code, in this case a reprisal, has been proved.

Thus, in a complaint or application alleging reprisal, the following elements must be established:

a. An action taken against, or threat made to, the complainant;

b. The alleged action or threat is related to the complainant having claimed, or attempted to enforce a right under the Code; and

c. An intention on the part of the respondent to retaliate for the claim or attempt to enforce the right.

In addition, the following principles are relevant:

a. There is no strict requirement that the complainant has filed a complaint or application under the Code, and

b. There is no requirement that the Tribunal find the respondent did in fact violate the complainant's substantive rights to be free from discrimination.

The first reprisal allegation

54The first allegation of reprisal concerns the alleged conversation in July 2013 with Professor Arnold. To recap, the allegation is that Professor Arnold told the applicant that Professor Nakhaie would write a paper with her but only if she dropped her human rights complaint, and that he told her that if she did not agree to this, she would either have to go to China and teach ESL or live on welfare in a rooming house with undesirable people.

55Assuming for the moment that the applicant's account of what happened is accurate, there is a question as to whether the conversation could represent a reprisal within the meaning of section 8 of the Code. Professor Nakhaie was certainly under no obligation to publish a paper with the applicant, so this was not a benefit that was withheld. The alleged offer seems to be an offer of a benefit to the applicant that would not otherwise have been available to her.

56The applicant says that a threat was communicated by Professor Arnold when he told her that if she did not accept the offer she would either have to move to China or end up in dire circumstances in a rooming house.

57Assuming again that this is what Professor Arnold said, it could not be a threat that would constitute a reprisal within the meaning of section 8 because neither Professor Arnold nor anyone else had any power to require the applicant to go to China to teach ESL, or to move into a rooming house and live with undesirable people.

58However, it is not necessary for me to determine if an inducement to drop a human rights complaint in return for a benefit or whether a threat that could not be enforced could constitute a reprisal under section 8 because I am satisfied that on a balance of probabilities, this offer and threat were not made.

59First, according to the applicant, the conversation with Professor Arnold occurred on July 10, 2013. The evidence establishes that at that time, neither Professor Nakhaie nor Professor Arnold knew that the applicant had filed a human rights complaint. The applicant filed the internal human rights complaint in June 2013, but Professor Nakhaie was not told about it until he received a copy of the complaint on July 26, 2013. There is no evidence that he was aware of the complaint before that and the Investigator's report indicates that he was very surprised to learn of it. Professor Arnold could not have conveyed an offer on behalf of Professor Nakhaie to drop a complaint that neither of them knew about.

60Second, there is no evidence that Professor Nakhaie was interested in writing a paper with the applicant. He certainly never made such an offer to the applicant. Professor Arnold's evidence is that this was an idea that Professor Arnold had because Professor Arnold thought it would benefit the applicant. His evidence is that he never discussed the idea with Professor Nakhaie.

61Apart from the applicant's speculation, I find no evidence to indicate that Professor Arnold discussed the idea of the applicant writing a paper with Professor Nakhaie or that Professor Nakhaie ever expressed any interest in writing a paper with the applicant. Indeed, the evidence shows that Professor Nakhaie was quite incensed at the applicant on the basis of the allegations that she made about him in the course of her academic appeals and was not likely disposed to working with the applicant on a paper.

62In regard to the allegation that Professor Arnold threatened the applicant in order to induce her to drop the human rights complaint, I have noted earlier that Dr. Arnold could not have threatened the applicant about a complaint that he was not aware of. Also, the alleged threat was not a threat that Professor Arnold or anyone else had any power to enforce. I further find that it is quite improbable that Professor Arnold told her that her only options were to teach ESL in China or live in a rooming house with undesirable people. These were quite plainly and obviously not the applicant's only options.

63The evidence does show that Professor Arnold and the applicant discussed the applicant obtaining an ESL certificate. I do not see that it makes any difference who first suggested this idea. There is nothing threatening about discussing such an option. China very likely came up in such discussions because, as Professor Arnold noted in his evidence, there is a large market for ESL in China.

64Professor Arnold testified that he likely did discuss various social benefit programs that are available for low income people. He indicated that these discussions would have occurred because the applicant was expressing concerns about her precarious financial situation. In my view, there is no basis for the applicant's allegation that these discussions contained any threat or anything that could be construed as reprisal.

The second reprisal allegation

65I now turn to the allegation that the applicant's application to be re-admitted to the University was rejected in reprisal for the fact that she had made a human rights complaint.

66On this issue there is some evidence that suggests that the human rights complaint and this Application could have influenced the application process.

67In particular, there is Professor's Cradock's email in which he said he could not meet the applicant "outside the formal process" until the human rights matter had been resolved. As discussed, this email appears to have been based on a misunderstanding about what the applicant wanted to see him about. He assumed it was to discuss the human rights matter but in fact she wanted to talk to him about her application for re-admission to the University. If he had met with her to discuss her re-admission application, he might have had a better understanding of what she wanted to do if she was re-admitted.

68This evidence might support the applicant's belief that the fact that she had made a human rights complaint and filed this Application was a factor that contributed to the rejection of her application for re-admission to the University.

69However, in my view, the evidence shows that the applicant's application for re-admission could not have succeeded even if the fact she had raised human rights issues was a factor.

70The applicant's evidence is that she was told by the Department of Graduate Studies that it was not necessary to submit a new Statement of Interest and that she was shocked to find out that the old Statement of Interest had been included in the package.

71While I understand that the applicant felt that she was following the direction she was given as best as she could, it is difficult to understand how the applicant failed to appreciate that it was at least a good idea to make sure her application included a clear explanation of what she hoped to do if she was re-admitted and how she planned to accomplish this, even if she was told that this was not necessary by the Department of Graduate Studies. Granting that the applicant is correct that her completely outdated 2004 Statement of Interest should not have been part of the package, if it was removed, the package included no information about what the applicant wanted to do.

72Since the applicant had been required to withdraw because she not been able to complete her thesis, to have any chance of success, the request for re-admission needed to address how the applicant would be able to complete her thesis if she were to be re-admitted. The issue of how she proposed to accomplish her goal of finishing her thesis was unaddressed by the applicant in her application for re-admission.

73Also unaddressed was the problem of how she would find someone who would agree to be her thesis advisor. Given the history, it is difficult to see how the applicant failed to foresee that there could be a problem in finding someone who would be prepared to do this and to understand that her application would not likely be successful unless she had someone who was prepared to be her advisor and who supported her proposal for re-admission so she could complete her thesis.

74In addition to these issues, the applicant was aware that her reference letters were going to be a problem. She had asked Professor Adam to provide a letter even though he had been clear that if he did so, he would be required to explain the history of her program and that this would not likely be helpful.

75While I appreciate that the applicant was provided with confusing and possibly contradictory information about what she was required to do in order to re-apply for admission to the University, I cannot see any evidence to support the proposition that she was provided with confusing and contradictory information in reprisal for having filed a human rights complaint. Based on the information that was put forth in support of her application for re-admission, it is not surprising that her application was rejected. In fact, it would have been very surprising if it had succeeded, based on the information in the package.

76In summary, I am satisfied that the evidence as a whole shows that the applicant's human rights complaint and this Application were not factors that contributed to the rejection of the applicant's application for re-admission to the University.

77For these reasons, I find that the allegations of reprisal must be dismissed. As a result, the Application in its entirety is also dismissed.