The University of Montreal will have to review its decision to exclude a dental student with mental health problems. In a judgment rendered last September, the court ordered the Faculty to re-analyze the file of this student who, according to the judge, seemed to have been excluded without his illness having been taken into consideration.
“The Court returns the file to the Faculty to analyze the Applicant’s file, taking into account his medical condition and the obligation to make reasonable accommodations”, we read in the decision of Judge Jacques R. Fournier. In short, even if the University does not have to justify an exclusion in every way, it was essential that this decision be taken in the light of the medical evidence. But it is only in this that the decision is “unreasonable”, specifies the judgment.
Furthermore, Fournier J. did not rule on the fact that the university had indeed fulfilled its accommodation obligations nor on the fact that these were sufficiently demanded by the applicant. It also specifies that it is up to the University, and not to a court, to decide whether a student is admitted or excluded from a program. The judge also saw no indication of any fault on the part of the University which would justify it paying damages, alluding to the $ 200,000 claimed by the plaintiff.
Last February, The duty reported that two discrimination lawsuits were filed earlier this year by dental students. The first, filed on January 4, 2021, is the one that has just received a judgment. A publication ban prevents giving the real name of the person who, in this case, is called “Mr. X”, because he fears being stigmatized because of his diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The student, who was in his fourth year of dentistry in five, claims to have been excluded for failures, although he never received the requested accommodations.
Alleged discrimination
“I welcome the judge’s decision and I am happy for my client for the moment, but it is not over, because the file is returning to the hands of the University for analysis”, notes Pierre-Jude Thermidor, l lawyer for the plaintiff. He is also delighted that the judge seems to have seen the same thing as him, namely that the decision to exclude a student cannot be taken as one would for any student who does not have a disability. . “For me, if we also treat people who are otherwise unequal, that’s discrimination. Mr. X had a mental health problem and, if he is excluded because of his grades, his problem must at least be taken into account. “
The judge ruled in favor of the applicant by indicating that, even if she alleges to have known the diagnosis of Mr. X on November 18, 2020, the University had been aware since March 2019 of the student’s mental health problems.
For mee Thermidor, it was all the more surprising not to find any mention of his client’s illness in the exclusion letter written by the University. “It’s completely obscured. In his opinion, the exclusion took place in two weeks, in the fall of 2020, during which Mr. X accumulated failures which served as grounds for dismissing him from the program.
However, the evidence shows that the student was seeing a psychiatrist at that time and trying to dose his medication. “When we have a known mental health problem and we seek help, we cannot be excluded on the basis of our grades without the disability being considered,” said Me Thermidor.
In an interview with To have to, Mr. X said he was “relieved” by this decision. “I was looking at my future and didn’t know what to do since my deportation,” he says. “I have been a dentist all my life in my home country. He said he passed all the exams to be admitted to studies here, including those in French, which opened the doors to the University of Montreal for him. “That’s why I came to Canada, to learn French and integrate the medical world here. “
The University of Montreal and its Faculty of Dentistry, for their part, indicated that they intended to “follow the conclusions, as they are worded in the judgment”. It was not possible to know the date on which the jury will meet to rule on the readmission or final exclusion of the student since the information would be confidential.