Zuluaga Aragon v. George Brown College, 2017 HRTO 935

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jose Zuluaga Aragon Applicant

-and-

George Brown College and Shelly LaForest Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jacek Janczur Date: July 25, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 935 Indexed as: Zuluaga Aragon v. George Brown College

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jose Zuluaga Aragon, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment and with respect to goods, services and facilities because of record of offences contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant was a student in the Registered Practical Nursing program at George Brown College.

3In January 2017, he was deregistered from a clinical placement course that was being conducted at Providence Health Centre.

4He was deregistered because his police record was not clear after a vulnerable sector screening was conducted.

5The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on March 14, 2017, on the basis that the applicant had failed to show how the respondent’s action was related to the prohibited ground of record of offences.

6The applicant responded to the NOID on May 22, 2017. He stated that he was convicted of impaired driving in 2007 and that he had applied for a pardon which had not yet been granted.

7In the applicant’s view, he should not be precluded from pursuing his studies because his conviction is not related to a crime of violence against any person.

8The term “record of offences” is defined in section 10(1) of the Code as follows:

“record of offences” means a conviction for, a. an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked; or b. an offence in respect of any provincial enactment.

9The ground “record of offences” does not protect those who have been convicted of a federal offence (and any consequences that may arise from that conviction), but only provides protection to those who have received a pardon, which has not been revoked. See Marsh v. Spinrite, 2010 HRTO 273.

10The applicant cannot avail himself of the protection afforded by the ground “record of offences”. He has a conviction for which he had not been pardoned and as a result, his allegations against the respondent do not engage this prohibited ground.

ORDER

11The Application is dismissed.