Sian Williams

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the university.

He argued the Tribunal failed to properly analyze the procedural duty to accommodate in the admissions process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to use the reconsideration process to appeal the original findings.

The Tribunal held that the university met its procedural duty to accommodate by conducting an individualized assessment of his application, and that the reconsideration request did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings seeking further production of documents and permission to call two medical witnesses, with one testifying by telephone.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to answer specific questions regarding the existence of the requested documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for Dr. Ouchterlony to testify by telephone, finding her evidence regarding the applicant's capacity to attend university too important and complex for teleconference.

The Tribunal also denied the request to call Dr. Warriner, as his 2015 neuropsychological report was not before the respondent when it made its 2013 admissions decision and was therefore irrelevant.

The applicant sought production of documents and the names of the members of the Admissions Committee that denied his application for admission to an academic program.

The respondent objected, citing FIPPA and privilege, and requested an undertaking that the applicant not contact the committee members.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the names and the documents, finding them arguably relevant, and held that FIPPA does not limit the Tribunal's power to order disclosure.

The Tribunal also set out a process for the respondent to assert privilege over specific documents.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application alleging sex discrimination pending the completion of an internal investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal employer investigation is not an independent decision-making process that could lead to inconsistent findings of fact or law, and therefore does not constitute a proceeding for the purposes of deferral.

The Tribunal also noted the respondent's lack of communication with the applicant regarding the investigation.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the respondent university to produce all members of its Admissions Committee as witnesses, to produce all related documents, and to exclude these witnesses from the hearing and prohibit them from discussing their testimony.

The respondent asserted privilege over the communications.

The Tribunal ordered that witnesses will be excluded from the hearing room when the hearing resumes, but declined to prohibit them from speaking prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file submissions supporting its claim of privilege before deciding on the production of documents and compellability of witnesses.