Robert Centa

The applicant, a graduate student, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed (ethical veganism) after her university professors criticized her academic work and the university ultimately prohibited her from pursuing a research topic relating to animal rights.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Assuming without deciding that ethical veganism is a creed, the Tribunal found that academic criticism of a student's scholarship does not constitute discrimination simply because it relates to the student's personally-held beliefs.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants, two former graduate students, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding their expulsion from a university program.

They subsequently filed a civil statement of claim against the university and individual respondents based on the identical facts, alleging a breach of the Human Rights Code and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Code acts as a mandatory bar to the applications because a civil proceeding had been commenced seeking remedies for the same alleged human rights infringements.

The applications were dismissed.

The licensee appealed a Director's ruling that suspended his licence, imposed an $8,000 fine, and placed him on probation.

At the hearing, the parties proposed a consent order addressing procedural matters, including disclosure, witness statements, electronic hearings, and the adjournment of remaining motions.

The Panel accepted the proposed consent order, extended the stay of the suspension, and remained seized of the matter.