Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Concetta Liddiard
Applicant
-and-
Trios College, Oshawa Campus and Her Majestry the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Liddiard v. Trios College, Oshawa Campus
APPEARANCES
Concetta Liddiard, Applicant
Self-represented
Trios College, Oshawa Campus, Respondent
Andrew Ebejer, Representative
Ontario (Training, Colleges and Universities), Respondent
Meagan Williams, Counsel
introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services on the basis of sex, age and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2By Case Assessment Direction dated April 5, 2016, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success as against the respondent Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.
3The summary hearing was held on November 7, 2016.
background
4The following facts are taken from the documents provided by the applicant on the summary hearing.
5The applicant enrolled at Trios College, Oshawa Campus (the “College”), on October 12, 2015 for a 17-week program. The program ended on February 12, 2016.
6On October 18, 2015, the applicant completed an application for a bursary for disability-related services and equipment for her studies at the College.
7On November 9, 2015, the applicant was advised by the College that her bursary application was not eligible for funding because it exceeded the maximum amount and included a request for a dependent.
8The applicant resubmitted her bursary application on November 19, 2015. It was received by the Ministry on November 30, 2015.
9On January 7, 2016, the applicant was advised that her bursary application had not been approved. The applicant withdrew from the College on January 8, 2016.
10On February 3, 2016, the Ministry provided reasons to the applicant for its decision to deny her bursary application. The Ministry refused the applicant’s bursary application because the eligible funding would have been issued to her after her study period ended. The Ministry advised the applicant that the purpose of the bursary is to provide disability-related services and equipment required for a student’s participation in post-secondary studies. Furthermore, because the applicant had not purchased any equipment, she could not be considered for reimbursement. Finally, the Ministry advised the applicant that because she had withdrawn from the current study period, she was ineligible for bursary funding.
11The applicant filed this Application with the Tribunal on February 17, 2016 against the College and the Ministry. The applicant’s allegation of discrimination against the Ministry is that it refused to disperse disability funds to her, and that she is a permanently disabled person.
12By Case Assessment Direction dated April 5, 2016, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed that a summary hearing be held on whether the applicant’s allegations against the Ministry have no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal directed the College to file a Response to the Application.
13A summary hearing took place on November 7, 2016. During the summary hearing, the applicant clarified her allegations against the Ministry. She stated the Ministry worked in concert with the College to deflect and deny her claim for bursary funding. The applicant asserted the Ministry intentionally stalled processing her claim so that the bursary application could be denied.
analysis
Reasonable Prospect of Success
14The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure as well as the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests. The purpose of a summary hearing is to consider, early in the proceeding, whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there is no reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.
15The Tribunal has held on many occasions that it does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness unrelated to the Code. Discrimination under the Code generally involves an allegation of adverse treatment because of one or more of the grounds listed in the Code. Adverse treatment is not discriminatory in the legal sense unless there is proof that one or more of the personal characteristics listed in the Code was a factor in the treatment the applicant experienced.
16The test that is applied at the summary hearing stage is whether an application has no reasonable prospect of success. At this stage, the Tribunal is not determining whether the applicant is telling the truth or assessing the impact of the treatment she experienced. The test of no reasonable prospect of success is determined by assuming the applicant’s version of events is true unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary.
17However, accepting the facts alleged by the applicant does not include accepting the applicant’s assumptions about why she was treated adversely. The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence the applicant is able to point to, either in her possession or evidence that may be reasonably available to her, which tend to support the applicant’s belief that she has experienced discrimination or reprisal under the Code. Although the applicant may point to evidence that support her allegations, there are no findings made at the summary hearing stage in relation to that evidence.
18The question that the Tribunal must decide at a summary hearing is whether there is likely to be sufficient direct or indirect evidence available