HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robert Makobero
Applicant
-and-
Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Makobero v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology
APPEARANCES
Robert Makobero, Applicant
Self-represented
Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, Respondent
Ann Burke, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application on May 11, 2016 alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of race, place of origin, citizenship and disability, and alleging reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application referred largely to alleged incidents that occurred in the context of the applicant’s housing and did not involve the respondent. The applicant filed a revised Application on May 15, 2016 alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of citizenship. The parties agree that the date of filing the Application is May 15, 2016.
2The Application describes what happened as follows:
In July 2014, after having completed my winter 2014 semester, I was required to withdraw from the summer 2014 semester, supposedly because I had enrolled illegally, while it was Seneca College that had offered me admission after receiving my complete file in January 2014. I had taken out a loan with OSAP for the summer 2014 semester, which I was not able to attend and which cost me $8,000.
And during the 2015-2016 academic year, certain professors made discriminatory remarks towards me, namely:
“You never realize that you are black”
“You were attempting to seduce white women and you were going out with them”, and
“You will not give your presentation because the other members of your group do not wish to work with you.” I received a grade of zero for this presentation.”
3The respondent filed a Response on November 7, 2016 denying the allegations about the applicant’s withdrawal from his studies in 2014 and requesting particulars about the allegations that “certain professors” may have made discriminatory remarks to the applicant during the academic year 2015/2016.
4The applicant failed to reply or provide particulars.
5On April 12, 2017 the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting particulars to the allegations that “certain professors” made discriminatory remarks to the applicant during the academic year 2015/2016.
6On April 20, 2017 the applicant filed a Response to a Request for an Order alleging as follows:
My application regarding discrimination that I experienced at Seneca College is not really based on the discriminatory comments made by certain professors […] The basis of my application regarding discrimination is the discriminatory refusal by Seneca College to provide me with a public service compliant with the standards applicable to public services due to my citizenship, place of origin, language and skin colour.
7The applicant added that the discriminatory comments made by professors were as follows:
a. The professor of ITA 411 in the fall of 2015 stated “You never realize that you are Black”.
b. The professor in ITA 411 in the winter semester of 2016 and who taught ITA 401 in the fall semester 2015 stated “You were attempting to seduce white women and you were going out with them”.
c. The professor in ITA 411 in the fall 2015 was always irritated by my presence and I had to withdraw from that course in the fall 2015 and take it in the winter 2016.
8For the first time on April 20, 2017, the applicant alleged that two separate unidentified groups of students in the course CAP 308 refused to work with him, which he argues amounted to harassment and discrimination. The applicant also alleges that the professor in that course condoned the students’ behaviour, which amounted to discriminatory negligence.
9In addition, the April 20, 2017 Response to a Request for an Order alleges that a Mr. Mike (“Mr. Mike”), in the admissions department, discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of his place of origin, language and colour with respect to the allegation that the respondent failed to provide an explanatory letter in support of his application for a study permit in June/July 2014.
10On May 15, 2017, the applicant filed an RFOP with supplementary responses making further allegations about remarks that Mr. Mike allegedly made to the applicant. The applicant also identifies for the first time the three professors, Paul Singh, Lisa Thomson and Debbie Stevens, who allegedly made pejorative and discriminatory comments to him about the colour of his skin.
11On May 29, 2017, the respondent filed an RFOP requesting to amend the Response and an extension of time to amend as required, requesting particulars and that the Application be dismissed in its entirety or in part. The respondent also filed a Request for Summary Hearing.
12On June 1, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) indicating that it would hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that:
a. it appears that some or all of the allegations may be untimely; and
b. there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
13On June 3, 2017, the applicant filed his response to the June 1, 2017 CAD. The applicant identifies Mr. Mike for the first time as Michael Ferdinand and makes further allegations against him. The applicant also filed a series of emails dated in March 2016 in support of his allegations that students discriminated against him by not wanting to work with him and that the professor in that class discriminated against him.
14The Tribunal held the preliminary hearing on July 10, 2017.
15The following incidents are addressed below:
a. The student permit, leave of absence of June 2014 and allegations against Mr. Ferdinand;
b. Alleged inappropriate comments by professors;
c. Allegations that students refused to work with the applicant and discrimination by the professor in that course.
The student permit, leave of absence of June 2014 and Mr. Ferdinand
Applicant’s Submissions
16The applicant states that in March 2014 he received his admission letter into the respondent’s International Transportation and Customs program. The applicant was a refugee at the time. At the end of May 2014, he learned from an immigration agent that he required a letter from the respondent to renew his student permit. The applicant explained that in June 2014, he attended at the respondent’s admission office to ask for the letter. He alleges that he was arbitrarily refused such letter.
17The applicant maintains that Mr. Ferdinand was responsible for the arbitrary refusal. As a result, the applicant had to withdraw from his June 2014 classes and resume in September 2014.
18The applicant alleges that he met with Mr. Ferdinand in June almost every day for a period of two weeks. He states that Mr. Ferdinand asked him numerous personal questions as follows:
a. His status and the amount of time spent in Canada;
b. His place of origin and citizenship;
c. His study program at the respondent’s, his semester and the length of the program;
d. His education level and diplomas from his country of origin;
e. His experience in his country of origin;
f. His educational goal.
19The applicant also alleges that Mr. Ferdinand made offensive comments to him as follows:
a. that he did not need a study permit as he was a refugee in the conventional sense;
b. that the respondent does not provide a service of granting explanatory letters;
c. that if the applicant believes the immigration agent told him he required such a letter, he must have misunderstood because his ability to speak English is poor;
d. that French is worthless in Ontario, that it does not have its place in the province;
e. that employment in the federal government, more specifically in the area of customs, can only be held by those born in Canada, not refugees.
20The applicant explains that it took almost two years after those alleged incidents to file his Application because he waited until he had been the victim of more than one incident. He states that the other incidents occurred in 2015/2016 when professors allegedly made inappropriate comments to him based on Code grounds.
21The applicant admits that his Application makes no mention of Mr. Ferdinand. He maintains that he did not know Mr. Ferdinand’s name at the time. He adds that in any event, the Application refers to the admissions office which should have been sufficient information to alert the respondent of his allegation against Mr. Ferdinand.
22The applicant also states that he filed late because this was his first Application with the Tribunal and he had no access to legal advice. He also explained that as he thought about the Application, he remembered more particulars and gradually provided that information.
23The applicant maintains that he did not seek legal assistance in 2014 because he was preoccupied with his studies. Between May and September 2014 he was not studying but he was preoccupied with getting his study permit.
24The applicant also maintains that in 2014, he did not file an application because he was worried about reprisal from the respondent.
Respondent’s Submission
25The respondent argues that the Application as it relates to the June 2014 allegation is untimely. The respondent maintains that all material facts relating to the leave of absence taken in July of 2014 had occurred by June 23, 2014 when the leave of absence was granted. The next allegation occurred during September 2015 creating a hiatus of more than 12 months between those two sets of allegations.
26The respondent further submits that the allegation against Mr. Ferdinand was not brought to its attention until on or after April 20, 2017. It maintains that the allegation against Mr. Ferdinand is an entirely new allegation not raised until that time. The information was provided nearly three years after the incidents of which the applicant complains and is untimely.
27The respondent also submits that the applicant has not established good faith in the untimely filing of the Application.
Alleged inappropriate comments by professors
Applicant’s Submission
28The applicant maintains that during the academic year 2015/2016, his professors made inappropriate comments to him.
29The applicant specifies that in October 2015, Professor Singh was lecturing in a course about customs. He made the inappropriate comment “You never realize that you are Black”. The applicant also maintains that he sent an email to Professor Singh and never received a response, notwithstanding the fact that Professor Singh had encouraged students to ask for assistance. The applicant believes that Professor Singh was irritated by his presence in his class. He withdrew from the course in October 2015.
30The applicant alleges that in October 2015 Professor Thomson was lecturing in a course about international transport. He maintains that Professor Thomson commented that he attempted to seduce white women. The applicant explains that he does not know why she made such comments. The applicant began avoiding Professor Thomson. He maintains that he took another course with her and missed about 4 classes at the beginning of the winter semester 2016.
31The applicant maintains that in the winter of 2016, in his customs class, Professor Stevens also said to the applicant that he attempted to seduce white women. He also avoided Professor Stevens. He states that he even asked Professor Stevens to send him his certificate by mail so he would not have to see her.
32The applicant explains that it took him more than one year to identify the professors who allegedly made inappropriate comments to him because he did not have their names. He filed particulars with the Tribunal when he remembered them. It was also his first time filing an Application with the Tribunal and he did not have access to legal representation or advice.
Respondent’s Submission
33The respondent maintains that the applicant failed to provide any particulars about the alleged inappropriate comments made by professors until April 20, 2017, when he made allegations against unidentified professors by reference to what they taught. The respondent submits that the allegations against them are untimely and should be dismissed.
34The respondent contends that an allegation of discrimination contrary to the Code is extremely serious and can have significant emotional and psychological impact on the individual against whom the allegation is made. The minimum requirements set out in the Rules of Procedure are intended to give fair notice to those alleged to have violated the Code. It is submitted that an Application containing allegations lacking such particularity (names, locations and dates) is a nullity and beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Allegation of students refusing to work with the applicant and discrimination by professor
Applicant’s Submission
35In February 2016, the applicant was enrolled in a course in which he had a group assignment on social media. Marlene Slawson was the professor in that course. The applicant maintains that he was assigned to a group of students but they did not want to work with him. The applicant states that he contacted Professor Slawson about it and she assigned him to a second group of students.
36At the preliminary hearing, the applicant maintained that Professor Slawson told him she assigned him to that second group because it included another Black student so the applicant should not have issues. The applicant maintains that this group did not want to work with him either. The applicant states that as a result, he did not participate in the mandatory presentation and received a zero for the assignment. The applicant argues that the mark was arbitrary as he never missed a class.
37The applicant alleges that in March 2016, he contacted Elaine Nethery, the student advisor, but she was negligent in not dealing with his complaint about the zero he received on the assignment.
38In his June 3, 2017 submissions to the Tribunal, the applicant filed a series of emails dated in March 2016 in support of his allegations that students discriminated against him by not wanting to work with him and that Professor Slawson also discriminated against him.
39The applicant argues that the students boycotted him because of his citizenship and ethnic background.
40The applicant admits that the only mention of the incident in the Application is the fact that he received a zero for a presentation. However, he states that he provided further particulars in April 2017 and June 2017 as he remembered them. He reiterates that this was his first Application with the Tribunal.
Respondent’s Submission
41The respondent submits that it is only on and after April 20, 2017, that the applicant alleged that two separate unidentified groups of students in CAP 308 harassed and discriminated against him and that Professor Slawson condoned the behaviour and discriminated against him. The respondent argues that the allegations against unidentified students, Professor Slawson and Ms. Nethery, first raised on or after April 20, 2017, are untimely and the applicant has failed to show that the delay in respect of these allegations was incurred in good faith.
42The respondent also argues that the applicant’s allegation against the professor in that class rests entirely upon a perception that the professor condoned the alleged discrimination by students and points to no evidence to suggest a violation of the Code.
analysis and decision
The June 2014 Leave of Absence
Series of Incidents
43Section 34 of the Code states in part:
(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.
44Section 34 of the Code provides that an Application must be filed within one year of the incident to which the Application relates, or within one year of the last incident in a series of events. Subsection 34(2) allows for a filing of an Application outside of the time limit if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to the respondents. In order to satisfy the Tribunal that a delay was incurred in good faith, an applicant must provide the Tribunal with a reasonable explanation as to why he or she did not pursue his or her rights under the Code in a timely manner.
45In Tesseris v. Pellark Dental Centre, 2014 HRTO 101 at para. 32 the Tribunal discussed the concept of a “series of incidents”:
However, the Tribunal has held that to form a series of incidents there must at least be some connection or nexus between the incidents that are alleged to form the series, and a series cannot be comprised of incidents relating to discrete and separate issues. See Baisa v. Skills for Change, 2010 HRTO 1621. The Tribunal has also said that incidents involving different facts and engaging different grounds under the Code cannot form a series of incidents for the purposes of section 34(1)(b). See Polihronakos v. Mississauga (City), 2010 HRTO 1433. Incidents separated by a gap in time of a year or more will generally not be considered a series. See Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1225, and Savage v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1360. Allegations that have no reasonable prospect of success cannot form part of a series of incidents. See Chappell v. Securitas Canada Limited, 2012 HRTO 874.
46The Application was filed on May 15, 2016. The applicant notes in the Application that the last incident occurred in March 2016. However, the Application does not refer to any incident that would have occurred in March 2016 and the applicant did not provide further particulars during the preliminary hearing. I find that there is nothing to indicate that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in March 2016.
47I find that all material facts related to the leave of absence occurred on or before June 23, 2014, the date upon which the respondent approved the applicant’s leave of absence to allow him to seek a study permit.
48The next alleged incidents of discrimination raised by the applicant refer to inappropriate comments made by professors. Those alleged incidents began in October 2015 with the alleged inappropriate comment made by Professor Singh.
49I find that the applicant has not established a series of incidents between the allegation related to the leave of absence, including the alleged comments made by Mr. Ferdinand, and the allegations that professors discriminated against him by making inappropriate comments or condoning students’ conduct. The applicant has not established a connection or nexus between the decision made about his status to remain in school and separate comments made by different professors in the classroom. The Tribunal has also consistently said that incidents separated by a gap in time of a year or more will generally not be considered a series. In this case, more than 15 months have elapsed between the leave of absence and the professors’ alleged inappropriate comments.
50The allegation related to the leave of absence, including the alleged inappropriate comments made by Mr. Ferdinand in June 2014 occurred almost two years before the Application was filed and is untimely.
Good Faith
51The issue I must therefore consider is whether the delay was incurred in good faith. The Tribunal has held that applicants have a “fairly high onus” in providing explanations for delay. Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241. In determining the issue of good faith, the Tribunal has considered factors such as the duration of the delay; whether Code-related reasons (such as a disability) directly impeded the applicant’s ability to file an application; the nature of the allegations; and whether the applicant was able to raise allegations in other venues during the period in question: Quimado v. S.A. Armstrong Ltd., 2009 HRTO 110 and Doyle v. Canarm, 2009 HRTO 674.
52I find the applicant has not established that the delay in filing the allegation related to the leave of absence in the Application was incurred in good faith, pursuant to s. 34(2) of the Code.
53The applicant’s main reason for the delay in filing the Application: it was his first time filing an Application with the Tribunal and he did not have access to legal advice.
54The Tribunal has consistently held, for example in Sadahgtani v. Kingston General Hospital, 2012 HRTO 1039 at paras. 19 and 21, that without more, ignorance of one’s rights and lack of legal representation do not establish good faith:
[…] The Tribunal has stated that although ignorance of one’s rights may in some circumstances amount to good faith, the applicant must also establish that he or she had no reason to make inquiries about his or her rights. See Stewart v. Mitten Vinyl, 2010 HRTO 1628 […]
The applicant also argues that the delay should be excused because he lacked legal representation. As stated in Moro v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2012 HRTO 436 at para. 21:
The Tribunal process does not require parties to have legal representation and often parties are self-represented...While the absence of legal advice may, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, go to explain the content of an application, the lack of legal counsel alone, without other extenuating circumstances, does not mitigate delay.
55The applicant also explained that he filed information late because he remembered more details of the incidents over time. The applicant had access at all times to emails in which names of professors and students were listed, and to the internet, where he eventually found Mr. Ferdinand’s last name. In addition, the applicant could have filed requests to amend the Application in a timely fashion to provide the respondent with an opportunity to consider new allegations and respond accordingly.
56Finally the applicant claims that he feared reprisal if he filed an Application while still studying at the respondent’s. The applicant did not explain why he feared reprisal.
57The Tribunal has held: “In my view an applicant seeking to rely on a fear of reprisal as a good faith explanation for delay in filing an Application is required at a minimum to provide a reasonable basis to believe that reprisal was a real possibility.” See Abedi v. Hôpital Montfort, 2015 HRTO 342 at para. 10. In this case, the applicant pleads no facts that could establish a reasonable belief that reprisal was a real possibility.
58I find that the allegation related to the June 2014 leave of absence in the Application is out of time and the applicant has pleaded no facts that would support a finding that the delay was incurred in good faith.
59The Tribunal has held that if it has not been shown that the delay was incurred in good faith it is not necessary for the Tribunal to make the further determination as to whether anyone has been substantially prejudiced by the delay: see Esanu v. Georgetown Non-Contact Hockey League, 2009 HRTO 579. Consequently, it is not necessary to determine whether the respondent has demonstrated substantial prejudice as a result of the delay.
60In the circumstances, I find that the allegation related to the June 2014 leave of absence in the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it is untimely under s. 34 of the Code. The Tribunal need not address whether there is no reasonable prospect that the allegation related to the leave of absence in the Application will succeed.
Allegations about Professors
61Rule 6.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires that an application specifically set out the underlying facts in support of allegations of discrimination. Rule 6.2 states:
A complete Application must provide the information requested in every section of the Application form and must set out all the facts that form the substance of the allegations of discrimination including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened, and the names of person(s) or organization(s) alleged to have violated the Applicant’s rights under the Code.
62With respect to the allegations that Professors Singh, Thomson and Stevens made inappropriate comments to the applicant based on Code grounds, the applicant failed to set out in the Application the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened, and the names of the professors alleged to have violated his rights under the Code. The applicant also failed to file a Reply to the Response in which the respondent specifically requested particulars. However the respondent waited until April 12, 2017 to file its RFOP requesting particulars and in April 20 2017, the applicant promptly provided particulars for these allegations, more specifically the courses in which the comments were allegedly made. On May 15, 2017, the applicant identified the three professors who allegedly made pejorative and discriminatory comments to him about the colour of his skin.
63The Tribunal held in Shakhnazarov v. George Brown College, 2011 HRTO 1917 at para. 23 that:
While s.34(1) of the Code applies only to when a person may apply to the Tribunal and not to when s/he can seek amendments, s. 34 does set out the Tribunal’s expectation that applicants will act in an expeditious manner and not unduly delay alerting respondents to new allegations so that they might know the case against them. It also acknowledges that the Tribunal, in exercising its discretion, can take into account whether respondents are prejudiced (Khokher v. Intercon Security Limited, 2011 HRTO 1493).
64I concur with the respondent that an allegation of discrimination contrary to the Code is extremely serious and can have significant emotional and psychological impact on the individual against whom the allegation is made. The requirements in the Rules are intended to give fair notice to those alleged to have violated the Code.
65However, in this case, the particulars of allegations against Professors Singh, Thomson and Stevens were filed on or after April 20, 2017, shortly after the respondent’s request for particulars. The respondent has not explained how it would be prejudiced by the late filing of particulars. I also note that these are not new allegations. Although the allegations were not detailed in the Application, the applicant did provide notice of the alleged inappropriate comments made by professors.
66I find that the applicant provided notice in the Application of the allegations of inappropriate comments made by professors and the respondent has not shown prejudice for the late filing of particulars. As a result, the Application shall continue with respect to the allegations against Professors Singh, Thomson and Stevens.
67The respondent will be provided with an opportunity to file an amended Response to address the particulars and the applicant will have an opportunity to file a Reply to the amended Response.
Students Refusing to Work with Applicant and Allegation that Professor Discriminated
Delay
68As for the allegation that the applicant was prevented from giving his presentation because students did not wish to work with him and he received a grade zero for this presentation, the respondent argues that it is only on and after April 20, 2017, that the applicant raised the particulars of the allegation.
69I note however, that the respondent addressed the allegation in its Response. It correctly identified Professor Slawson as the professor responsible for the course and described the incident from its perspective, including the students’ interaction with the applicant. I find that the allegation about the students is not a new allegation and the respondent had sufficient information to provide a comprehensive response. In addition, the respondent did not explain how it would be prejudiced by the late filing of particulars. I find that this allegation cannot be dismissed because of timeliness.
70The allegations against Ms. Nethery were not referred to in the Application at all and were not made until June 3, 2017, more than one year after the alleged incident.
71Rule 5.7 of the Rules of Procedure reads:
Where a party seeks to […] make submissions with respect to a fact or issue that was not raised in the Application, Response, Reply, or in the materials filed under Rule 16 or 17, the Tribunal may refuse to allow the party to […] make submissions about the fact or issue unless satisfied that there would be no substantial prejudice and no undue delay to the proceedings.
72New allegations require a request to amend the Application, which the applicant failed to file. Consequently, the applicant is barred from relying on the allegations against Ms. Nethery.
No Reasonable Prospect
73The respondent argues that the allegations that two separate unidentified groups of students in CAP 308 harassed and discriminated against the applicant and that Professor Slawson condoned the behaviour and discriminated against him have no reasonable prospect of success. It maintains that the applicant has not pointed to evidence that would suggest a link between the respondent’s actions and a Code related ground.
74Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure reads as follows:
19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure of witness statements.
75The test on a summary hearing is whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. See Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994. As the Tribunal explained further in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17:
The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights.
76The applicant alleges that he was excluded from working with two groups of students, that such exclusion was discriminatory and that Professor Slawson condoned the discriminatory behaviour. In support of the allegations, the applicant provided a series of email exchange between students showing that they were attempting to coordinate the tasks to complete the group assignment. The applicant has not shown that he will be able to establish a link between the emails and a prohibited ground under the Code.
77However, during the preliminary hearing, the applicant mentioned for the first time that Professor Slawson made comments about the colour of his skin: that he was placed with a second group of students that included a Black student so he would not have issues with that. At a summary hearing, unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal assumes the facts alleged by the applicant to be true. As a result, I find that the respondent has not established that the applicant’s allegation related to the group assignment in Professor Slawson’s class has no reasonable prospect of success.
78The respondent will be provided with an opportunity to file an amended Response to address the new particulars and the applicant will have an opportunity to file a Reply to the amended Response.
order
79For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The Application shall continue with respect to the following allegations:
i. Inappropriate comment “You never realize that you are Black” made by Professor Singh in the fall of 2015 and that Professor Singh was irritated by the applicant’s presence;
ii. Inappropriate comments “You were attempting to seduce white women and you were going out with them” made by Professors Thomson and Stevens in the fall semester of 2015 and the winter semester 2016;
iii. That Professor Slawson discriminated against the applicant in the context of a group assignment in the course CAP 308.
b. The respondent may file an amended Response to respond to the particulars within 28 days from the date of this Interim Decision. If the applicant wishes to file a Reply to any amendment made to the Response, he must do so within 14 days of receiving an amended Response from the respondent.
c. The Application is dismissed with respect to the allegation related to the June 2014 leave of absence.
Dated at Toronto, this 11^th^ day of September, 2017.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair