The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed applications from two former students of the City of Toronto’s paramedic program who alleged discrimination and reprisal following their removal from the course.
The tribunal ruled that neither applicant established, on a balance of probabilities, that their protected characteristics under the Human Rights Code were factors in their dismissals.
The applicants, H.S.M. and T.S., alleged that they were discriminated against based on race, ethnic origin, sex, and age. T.S. further alleged sexual harassment and reprisal. Both were self-represented.
Allegations and evidence presented by the applicants
H.S.M., a former doctor from Colombia and Spain, was enrolled in the paramedic program through Ontario Works. He alleged that he was targeted due to his knowledge and experience, which he claimed exceeded that of the instructors.
He further contended that white men over 50, like himself, were unfairly removed. He pointed to instances where female students were late without consequence, whereas he was locked out of the classroom for the same conduct. He also claimed that instructors deliberately ignored his questions, engaged in grade manipulation, and accused him of plagiarism without justification.
T.S. argued that he faced discrimination due to his age, sex, and cultural background. He claimed that instructors viewed him as a career threat due to his extensive education and professional experience. He alleged that female students were treated more leniently, citing incidents where a female student verbally harassed him without repercussions.
Additionally, he claimed an instructor made an inappropriate sexual comment and stared at his crotch, which he interpreted as sexual harassment. He was initially reinstated after appealing his dismissal but failed to meet the conditions of his reinstatement and was ultimately removed from the program.
City of Toronto’s response
The City denied all allegations, arguing that the applicants were dismissed for failing to meet the program’s academic and practical standards. The program, designed as a poverty-reduction initiative, required students to complete all modules with a minimum grade of 70%. The City maintained that both applicants failed multiple practical evaluations.
Regarding H.S.M.’s claims, the City presented evidence that he struggled with practical assessments, failing multiple scenario-based evaluations and demonstrating difficulties in effective patient communication.
The City also provided evidence of plagiarism in his case report, which, combined with his failing grades, led to his removal from the program. The City refuted his claims of disparate treatment, presenting testimony that female students who violated policies were also subject to consequences.
For T.S., the City argued that he consistently underperformed in practical evaluations, including incorrectly using medical equipment and pausing CPR for 45 seconds. His second dismissal followed an unsuccessful re-evaluation. The City denied the sexual harassment allegations, stating that a classroom discussion about practicing scenarios involved a student joking about a “sex doll,” which was not instructor-initiated. The instructor accused of staring at T.S.’s crotch categorically denied the claim.
Tribunal’s findings
The tribunal assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that while the applicants’ factual recounting of events was generally consistent, their interpretations were not credible. It ruled that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
The tribunal accepted the City’s explanations for the applicants’ failing grades and removal, concluding that performance deficiencies, not discrimination, led to their dismissal. It found that the evidence did not support the claim that the applicants were treated differently based on their protected characteristics. The tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, determining that the applicants’ removals were due to their academic performance and not retaliation for asserting their rights.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both applications, concluding that the applicants had not met their burden of proof in demonstrating discrimination or reprisal under the Human Rights Code.
For more information, see Saavedra Mahecha v. Toronto (City), 2025 HRTO 564 (CanLII).
