Ananda v. Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, 2016 HRTO 332

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rohan Ananda

Applicant

-and-

Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Rohan Ananda

Applicant

-and-

University of New Brunswick

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: March 14, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 332

Indexed as: Ananda v. Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rohan Ananda, Applicant

Andrew Ostrom, Counsel

Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, Respondent

Catherine Peters, Counsel

University of New Brunswick, Respondent

Clarence Bennett, Counsel

1This Interim Decision is issued in anticipation of the hearing in this matter, which is scheduled to proceed in Toronto on March 21 and 22, 2016, and to address two issues: (1) the applicant’s request for consolidation of these two matters; and (2) the applicant’s request for production of certain documents from the respondent Humber College.

2With regard to the consolidation issue, all parties agree to consolidation of these two matters. Further all parties agree that the hearing in these two matters can proceed as scheduled on March 21 and 22, 2016, provided that the University of New Brunswick makes disclosure of its witness statements and documents by March 14, 2016, which the University has done. Accordingly, these two matters are consolidated and will be heard together on March 21 and 22, 2016.

3With regard to the applicant’s production request, the applicant requests from Humber College a copy of all requests made by other students in the College’s nursing program during the time period from 2013 to 2015 for an extension of the six year deadline to complete the program (with redactions as necessary to protect the privacy of third parties) and the College’s responses to these requests. This production request is opposed by the College.

4The applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination because of family status when his request for an extension of the six year deadline to complete the College’s nursing program was denied; on the ground that the basis for his request was his family status in that he alleges that he was the sole caregiver for his mother. Given the nature of this allegation, it is unclear to me how extension requests made by other students in the context of other circumstances are arguably relevant to the issue to be determined in this proceeding.

5The applicant submits that these documents are arguably relevant to the issue of whether the applicant was accorded differential treatment from other similarly-situated students. I do not agree. The allegation raised in this proceeding is not an allegation of differential treatment, but rather an allegation that the applicant’s family status-related needs were not properly considered and accommodated by the College. In my view, the documents requested simply will not be of any assistance to this Tribunal in determining this issue. Accordingly, the applicant’s request is denied.

ORDER

6For the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following order:

a. Applications 2015-20817-I and 2015-22217-I are hereby consolidated and will be heard together at the hearing scheduled for March 21 and 22, 2016; and

b. The applicant’s request for production from the respondent Humber College is denied.