The Complainants were two mature students at Yukon College. Both began their program in their 50s. Early in the program, the Complainants faced challenges with their assignments. For example, the instructors found that their assignments were similar. As a result, their instructors at the Yukon College (“the Respondents”) set up meetings with them. During this time, one of the Complainants was admitted to the hospital with heart problems due to stress. Over the course of numerous meetings, the Respondents focused on developing an education plan that would reduce the stress on the Complainants. The plan sought to extend the one-year program into a third or fourth semester. During this period, there were miscommunications between the Complainants and the Respondents. The Complainants stated that they felt increasingly harassed and stressed, and as a result, agreed with the Respondents’ suggestions regarding their education path. In reality, however, the Complainants remained intent on completing the program in one year. The Respondents, on the other hand, believed that the Complainants would complete the program as per their proposed education plan.
The Complainants filed a complaint with the Yukon Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”), against the Yukon College and their instructors, alleging that the instructors of the program had discriminated against them on the basis of their age, family status and mental/physical disability. They also alleged that the Respondents harassed them during this time.
In making its decision, the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication (“the Board”) considered the following issues:
- Did the Respondents discriminate against the Complainants on the basis of their age, family status or disability?
- If so, did the Respondents fail to provide the Complainants with the accommodations they requested?
- Did the Respondents harass the Complainants, based on a prohibited ground?
- If so, did the Respondents fail to provide the Complainants with the accommodations they requested?
The Board started by determining whether the Respondents discriminated against the Complainants. First, the Board found that the Complainants were treated differently or unfavourably on the basis of their age. Though the Complainants were the oldest in their class, most students in their programs were in their 30s and 40s, and 11 students were over 50 years of age. As one of the Respondents stated, the program was developed to target mature students.
Next, the Board found that the Complainants were not treated differently due to their family status. The Complainants claimed that they were discriminated against because they were twins. For example, the Complainants alleged that because they were twins, they were told to sit with other students during group activities. The Board accepted the Instructors’ evidence, which explained that moving students to different groups was part of the teaching methods for the program and sought to encourage diversity ingroup activities. The Instructors encouraged other students to expose themselves to different groups as well. The Board also considered whether the Instructors discriminated against the Complainants when they told them to work independently on their work. The Board found that this was not the case. It was not difficult to see the similarities in the assignments, and it was reasonable to want to prevent collaboration on assignments that were graded independently.
Then, the Board determined whether the Complainants were treated differently due to their cognitive and physical disabilities. First, the Board found that the Complainants were not treated differently due to their learning and cognitive disabilities. The Complainants told a number of people at the College that at least one of them had a learning disability, which they labelled as “number dyslexia”. They often provided it as an explanation for their academic difficulties. There was no evidence before the Board that proved that the Respondents discriminated against the Complainants or treated them unfavourably on the basis of a perception of dyslexia. Rather, the College encouraged the Complainants to seek further medical testing so that they could determine the appropriate accommodations.
Subsequently, the Board determined that the Respondents discriminated against the Complainants on the basis of a physical disability by preventing them from completing the program in one year. In order to make this determination, the Board asked the following questions:
- Did the College prevent the Complainants from completing the program in one year?
- Did the College prevent the Complainants from completing the program on the basis of their physical disabilities?
- Did the College prevent the Complainants from completing the program?
First, the Board found that the College did prevent the Complainants from completing the program in one year. When the Complainants began the program, they were entitled to register for all courses required for graduation. However, when they tried to register for a full course load, they did not receive authorization because it was presumed that they were going to take on a reduced course load. Second, the Board found that the Complainants were prevented from completing the program based on the Respondents’ perspective that the Complainants were not physically capable of successfully completing the program on a full-time basis. The evidence showed that the instructors did consider that the physical condition of the Complainants was an obstacle to their success based on their poor attendance record, hospitalization and disclosure of health conditions.
To conclude its analysis regarding the first issue, the Board rejected the Complainants’ allegations that they were not accommodated. The Complainants expressed a number of times that they did not want any accommodations. Therefore, they could not later accuse the Respondents of failing to accommodate them.
The Board then considered the second issue. First, the Board examined whether there was harassment by the Instructors. Harassment is a course of vexatious conduct that the Respondents knew or should have reasonably known was unwelcome. In this case, the instructors insisted that the Complainants follow an education path that was not the one-year standard path. They set up ongoing meetings and refused to provide permission to register for a full course load. Though they may have had the best intentions, they did not listen to what the Complainants wanted. Nonetheless, the Board did not find harassment by the instructors since it believed that they were acting under the direction of the College administration. Second, the Board considered whether the College could be held responsible for the harassment. The Board found that the College administration had no clear process for managing human rights complaints. Though the situation called for conflict resolution between the students and instructors, there was no intervention by the Dean. In that sense, the College had failed both the instructors and the Complainants. For this reason, the Board held the College responsible for failing to address harassment issues.
To conclude its analysis pertaining the second issue, the Board rejected the Complainants’ allegations that they were not accommodated. The Complainants failed to communicate and cooperate during the final phase of their coursework.
The Board ordered the College to:
- Pay each Complainant $10,000 in damages to dignity, feelings and self-respect;
- Pay $30,000 to the Complainants for legal costs, and;
- Establish an appropriate process for managing human rights concerns and provide appropriate training, support and information to its employees.