Sandra Barton

The applicant, a Black physician and assistant professor in the Division of Cardiology, alleged that he experienced racial discrimination when the respondent University denied his application for promotion to associate professor and in a subsequent performance appraisal.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case, the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation for the denial of promotion, namely the applicant's lack of peer-reviewed publications and peer-reviewed funding as a principal investigator, as well as a teaching record that did not meet the 'very good' standard.

The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not support an inference that the applicant's race was a factor in the promotion process or the performance appraisal, and dismissed the application.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in the denial of a university promotion, the Tribunal ruled on the admissibility of several proposed witness statements.

The Tribunal struck proposed similar fact evidence from other faculty members as irrelevant and lacking sufficient connection to the respondents.

The Tribunal also struck proposed expert evidence challenging a university equity report and assessing the applicant's promotion dossier, finding that such evidence was not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

Certain paragraphs of the applicant's own witness statement were struck for raising new allegations not included in the original complaint.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in a university promotion process, the Tribunal ruled on requests to strike witness statements and expert reports.

The Tribunal struck portions of a witness statement and a proposed expert report by Dr. Frances Henry, finding the evidence either duplicative, beyond the permitted scope for supplementary filings, or unnecessary to assist the trier of fact.

The Tribunal also struck a paragraph of the applicant's statement regarding a respondent's subsequent employment status, but declined to strike other witness statements, noting that objections to hearsay or relevance went to weight rather than admissibility.

Case management directions were also issued.

In an application alleging discrimination in the denial of a promotion to Associate Professor, both parties made requests for the production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce unredacted Annual Reports and promotion dossiers for faculty members who applied for similar promotions within a five-year period, as well as information regarding prior discrimination complaints against the personal respondents or relating to similar promotion denials.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for exit surveys and broader statistical data.

The respondents' request for documents relating to the applicant's subsequent employment and achievements was dismissed as not arguably relevant to the liability phase of the bifurcated proceeding.