The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) rendered an interesting decision last week in Ayotte v. Liberty University and another involving a human rights claim launched by a student in British Columbia attending an educational institution in the United States.

In a nutshell, in 2008 Bonnie Ayotte was enrolled at Liberty University in Virginia to complete a Master’s degree in Professional Counselling.  She also has a physical and mental disability, which did not stop her from acing her courses.  She had only one course and an internship left to finish the degree, when a problem arose.  As a distance learning student, she was responsible for finding an internship and getting all necessary insurance.  Ms. Ayotte was refused certain coverage because of her disability, and she lost the internship.  Liberty refused to let her join their group plan and pointed to a policy on its website stating that distance learning students have to get their own insurance.  She filed a complaint with the BCHRT against Liberty and the Ministry of Children and Social Development (her intended employer) alleging violations of the following provisions of the Human Rights Code (BCLaws):

8  (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or

(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or class of persons.

13  (1) A person must not

(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or

(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.

…

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply with respect to a refusal, limitation, specification or preference based on a bona fide occupational requirement.

The Tribunal handling Ms. Ayotte’s claim asked the parties for their arguments about whether this dispute was within the jurisdiction of the BCHRT, relying on the following test set out in Carlisle v. Law School Admissions Council, 2003 BCHRT 152:

It is not the location of the Respondent, but rather the location of the incidents giving rise to the Complaint, that will determine the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The Tribunal declined to reject Ms. Ayotte’s claim entirely at this stage.  But the decision raises the interesting issue of when exactly a student’s claim against an educational institution outside of British Columbia will be subject to the jurisdiction of the BCHRT. 

Disputes in the context of education are often resolved on the basis of the jurisdiction of the adjudicator that the parties appear before (e.g. a judge or panel) rather than which party has more justice on its side.  As a result, anyone involved in these sorts of grievances should first understand – before all else – the basis, if any, for arguing a claim before a particular court or tribunal.

My thanks to Vancouver lawyer and human rights expert Mike Weiler for sending me a link to this decision.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share