Longueépée v. Wilfrid Laurier University, 2015 HRTO 32

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Roch Longueépée

Applicant

-and-

Wilfrid Laurier University

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: January 9, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 32

Indexed as: Longueépée v. Wilfrid Laurier University

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Roch Longueépée, Applicant

Anthony Tibbs, Counsel

Wilfrid Laurier University, Respondent

D. Brent Labord and Matthew J. Mihailovich, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application is proceeding to a hearing on February 10 and 11, 2015.

2A number of Requests for Orders During Proceedings (“RFOP”) have been filed by the parties. This Interim Decision addresses those requests.

Dismissal of Allegations Relating to OUAC Fees

3The respondent has filed a RFOP asking the Tribunal to dismiss allegations in the Application relating to the fees charged by the Ontario University Application Centre (“OUAC”). The allegations in the Application concern the process that occurred regarding the applicant’s application fees to the respondent, and the ultimate fee waiver. The respondent submits these allegations have no reasonable prospect of success because, among other things, the OUAC is a separate entity and allegations against it are not properly before the Tribunal in this Application.

4In my view, it is more appropriate to hear this request after having heard the applicant’s evidence. The applicant will testify about his application for admission to the respondent, including the process around the application fees. Because this evidence is part of the applicant’s narrative, it will be more efficient to deal with the dismissal request after the applicant’s evidence is heard.

5The respondent can renew this request after the close of the applicant’s evidence.

Production of Documents from the Applicant

Legal Test for Production

6It is well-established that a party seeking production of documents must demonstrate the information is “arguably relevant” to the proceeding. In order to establish “arguable relevance”, a party must show that there is a nexus between the sought-after material and the subject-matter of the Application.

7The respondent has defended this Application by asserting, in part, that the applicant cannot achieve academic success in full-time university studies. As such, the applicant’s attempts at post-secondary education are arguably relevant to the issues in this proceeding. For this reason, the applicant must produce any documents relevant to his attempts at post-secondary education, including, but not limited to:

a. All documents relating to post-secondary education pursuits at Athabasca University, including applications for admission, acceptance letters, accommodation plans, test and assignment results, transcripts, and any other documents;

b. All documents relating to post-secondary education pursuits at Conestoga College, including applications for admission, acceptance letters, accommodation plans, test and assignment results, transcripts, and any other documents;

c. All documents relating to Saint Louis Adult Learning and Continuing Education Centre (Waterloo Catholic District School Board), including applications for admission, acceptance letters, accommodation plans, test and assignment results, transcripts, and any other documents;

d. Law School Admission Test results and application for admission to York University’s law school.

8The respondent has also sought production of Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) documents and income tax returns from 2003 to the present on the basis that the applicant has made allegations of financial hardship. It appears that these documents may be relevant to the allegations relating to the OUAC fees. As it is unclear to me whether these allegations are properly the subject of this Application, I am not ordering production of these documents at this time. In the event the allegations relating to the OUAC fees continue in this proceeding, the respondent can renew its request for production of these documents.

Production of the Members of the Admissions Committee by the Respondent

9The applicant has requested that the respondent produce as witnesses all of the members of the Admissions Committee. The respondent has indicated in its pre-hearing production that five out of eight members of the Admissions Committee are on its witness list.

10The respondent objects to producing all of the members of the Admissions Committee. It states it has no obligation to call any evidence in the event the applicant does not establish a prima facie case. Although the respondent submits this matter should be dealt with as a summary hearing, together with the other outstanding preliminary matters, prior to the commencement of the hearing on the merits, it has not made a formal summary hearing request.

11I am not ordering the respondent to produce all of the members of the Admissions Committee at this time. A decision on respondent witnesses will be made after the applicant has completed his case.

12The Tribunal will hear the applicant’s case on February 10 and 11, 2015. The applicant will testify, and he should ensure that Dr. Ouchterlony is available to testify during these hearing dates.

13This ruling does not prevent the respondent from making a summary hearing request.

Amend Remedy Sought in Application

14The applicant has filed a RFOP to amend the Application by increasing the compensation sought from $15,000 to $100,000. The Tribunal has already advised the parties that this request will be addressed at the hearing.

Change of Venue

15The applicant has requested that the venue of the hearing be changed from Toronto to Waterloo. The Registrar will decide this request.

Order

16The applicant must produce the following documents by January 27, 2015:

a. All documents relating to post-secondary education pursuits at Athabasca University, including applications for admission, acceptance letters, accommodation plans, test and assignment results, transcripts, and any other documents;

b. All documents relating to post-secondary education pursuits at Conestoga College, including applications for admission, acceptance letters, accommodation plans, test and assignment results, transcripts, and any other documents;

c. All documents relating to Saint Louis Adult Learning and Continuing Education Centre (Waterloo Catholic District School Board), including applications for admission, acceptance letters, accommodation plans, test and assignment results, transcripts, and any other documents;

d. Law School Admission Test results and application for admission to York University’s law school.