HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kyle Borden
Applicant
-and-
York University and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Borden v. York University
APPEARANCES
Kyle Borden, Applicant
Self-represented
York University, Respondent
Joanna Rainbow, Counsel
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, Respondent
Bruce Ellis, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed. It also alleges that the applicant was reprised against because he raised his rights under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”).
2In a Case Assessment Direction dated May 11, 2016, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing would be held by telephone conference call. The Case Assessment Direction provided that the purpose of the summary hearing was to determine if the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The summary hearing was held on October 12, 2016. The applicant, counsel for York University, and counsel for the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (“the Ministry”) participated in the conference call hearing.
3At the outset of the hearing, the applicant stated that he does not agree that his Application should be the subject of a summary hearing. The applicant indicated that the fact that a summary hearing had been scheduled was another example of racism that he has experienced which in turn is part of a four-hundred year history of oppression.
4He also said that he thinks that it is unfair that he was not provided with legal counsel since the representatives are represented by counsel. He said that he was prevented from retaining his own counsel because of the direction that his Application would be the subject of a summary hearing. As I indicated at the summary hearing, the Tribunal does not provide legal representation or advice and had nothing to do with interactions the applicant may have had with potential representatives.
5In this Decision, I am required to summarize the applicant’s allegations. During the hearing, the applicant did not agree with my attempts to summarize his allegations and I acknowledge that he may not agree with the summary of allegations in this Decision. At the conclusion of the summary hearing, I indicated that I had heard the substance of the applicant’s allegations and that the hearing could be concluded on that basis.
BACKGROUND
6The applicant applied to an undergraduate program at York University. He was accepted as a student but did not enrol for any classes. According to the respondent York University, his acceptance offer then lapsed.
7The applicant required financial assistance to attend university. The applicant submits that tuition fees discriminate against people who he identifies as descendants of slaves. He submits that the history and legacy of slavery and continuing racism has never been acknowledged and nothing has been done to make reparations. He submits that because of this legacy and ongoing racism, tuition fees should be waived for him and others who share the history and legacy.
8In the alternative, the applicant submits that interest free loans should be available. He made enquiries about student loans available from the Ministry. He discovered that loans are made with an expectation that they will be repaid with interest after graduation. The applicant submits that the fact that interest is charged results in discrimination because of creed. At the hearing, he clarified that his religious beliefs mean that he cannot agree to a loan that involves interest or usury. I asked the applicant if he could clarify his creed-based allegations. He said that it is also against his religious beliefs to identify the religion that he associates with except to others who identify with that religion.
9According to the Ministry the applicant never applied for any financial assistance. The Ministry advises that it provides financial assistance through a variety of programs, including non-repayable grants and loans. Grants attract interest six-months after graduation, but assistance is available if re-payment results in financial hardship.
10The applicant submits that he was prevented from applying for financial assistance because it is contrary to his religious beliefs to accept a loan that includes payment of interest. I note that because the applicant never made an application for financial assistance, the Ministry had no opportunity to assess his needs, including whether there was a basis for accommodation because of creed.
11The allegation of reprisal is made against York University. It relates to the applicant’s experience in trying to advance his position as a descendent of slaves and a victim of the centuries of racism that have continued since the legacy of slavery. He states that he was given the run around and that his acceptance as a student was then allowed to lapse.
CONCLUSIONS
12Both respondents have a variety of programs to provide financial assistance to students. Entitlement to those programs is based on the financial circumstances of the student without regard to the student’s race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, or creed. The applicant submits that these factors should be taken into account and that failure to do so perpetuates the legacy of social racism that started with the slave trade.
13In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could show that the fact that financial assistance to students is granted only on the basis of the student’s financial situation is discriminatory. It is obviously not true that all people associated with those Code-protected grounds require greater financial assistance than other people.
14Both respondents instead provide financial assistance based on the student’s financial needs. If a student has greater financial need, for whatever reason, the student’s entitlement will be assessed on the basis of that need.
15For these reasons, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could successfully show that either respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, or ethnic origin in regard to