Cases of discrimination against students with disabilities in the Medical Radiologic Technology program at Red Robber College- Winnipeg
A message from a user:
Follow this link to read cases of discrimination against students. One of which happened to a Red River student in the Medical Radiology program and many more cases are still pending as of 2014…
Full message is on comments on next article: “The Status of Racism and Discrimination at Red Robber College (Medical Radiologic Technology)- Winnipeg”
A part of “cases of discrimination against students”:
The applicant enrolled in the Medical Radiologic Technology program at Red River College in the Fall of 2005. At the end of her first semester the applicant failed one of the required courses and was not eligible to continue to the next semester. In June 2006, the College informed the applicant that it would consider an application for re-admission for September 2007 if she met certain conditions, which included the following: complete an anger management course; satisfy the College’s Counselling and Disability Services that she was eligible for re-admission; provide a letter from a doctor under whose care she had been for a minimum of six months confirming that she was able to manage the rigor of a demanding full-time post-secondary program that included clinical work; refrain from contacting any College employee at home unless expressly asked to do so; and refrain from sending any threatening or unsolicited emails at any time.
The applicant successfully met the criteria and in May 2007 she was informed that she was re-admitted to the program. However, she subsequently received a letter stating that in light of “new information” regarding her conduct with College staff it would be inappropriate for her to re-enter the program or continue any studies at the College. The “new information” consisted of three incidents: one where the applicant accused an Instructor of being racist in a threatening tone, another where she made a comment to an Instructor that was interpreted as an attempt to bully the Instructor, and an incident where the applicant became agitated at a meeting causing a College employee to have concerns regarding her safety. The applicant denied the allegations. Further, the alleged incidents occurred before the end of 2006 and well before the re-admission letter. However, the College claimed that it did not know about this behaviour at the time the decision was made to re-admit her (later the College accepted that one of the incidents was known to College administrators in 2006). Therefore, the offer to re-admit was rescinded and the applicant was prohibited from accessing any Red River College campus or having any contact with staff in the School of Health Sciences and Community Services. The Appeals Committee reviewed the decision and held that while there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the applicant was a threat to the College community, there was evidence supporting her inappropriate behaviour contrary to College policy. As a result, the Committee decided to suspend the applicant from the College until Fall 2010 and denied her access to the campus and contact with the staff until the Fall 2009.
The Court held that the applicant was owed a duty of procedural fairness. The applicant made several arguments regarding various breaches of the duty of procedural fairness; however, the Court held that the applicant had waived several rights associated with this duty. The Court did conclude, however, that the failure to provide adequate reasons was a breach of procedural fairness and that the Appeal Committee’s decision, which was based on “new information” that was contested and occurred prior to the time the applicant completed the various requirements for re-admission, was not reasonable.
Thus, the decision of the Appeals Committee was quashed. The Court declined to award the other remedies sought.
Students eye view files