Heaton v Navitas Professional Institute Pty Ltd t/as Australian College of Applied Psychology [2020] NSWCATAD 260

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Heaton v Navitas Professional Institute Pty Ltd t/as Australian College of Applied Psychology [2020] NSWCATAD 260 Hearing dates: 9 September 2020 Date of orders: 23 October 2020 Decision date: 23 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: K Ransome, Senior Member Decision: Leave to proceed with the complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation is refused. Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – Equal Opportunity – application for leave to proceed with complaint – claims of disability discrimination in education and victimisation - whether fair and just to grant leave to proceed Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Cases Cited: Bonella v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWADT 194 Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 236 Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143 Jones & Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWADT 44 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Jacqueline Heaton (Applicant) Navitas Professional Institute Pty Ltd t/as Australian College of Applied Psychology (First Respondent) Sue Paton (Second Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self Represented) Banki Haddock Fiora, (First and Second Respondents) File Number(s): 2020/00142288 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 6 January 2020 Ms Jacqueline Heaton made a complaint to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (the President) alleging that the Australian College of Applied Psychology had discriminated against her on the ground of disability and victimised her. She also alleged that a teacher at the College, Ms Sue Paton, had victimised her. 2. Ms Heaton was a student at the College in a Graduate Diploma of Counselling and was enrolled in a class taught by Ms Paton. The essence of her complaint is that Ms Paton failed to make adjustments to accommodate her disability (deafness and dyslexia) at her first class on 15 February 2019. Ms Heaton complained to the College about the failure to accommodate her disability. However, she states that the following week when she attended class on 22 February 2019, Ms Paton verbally abused her in front of the class. Ms Heaton alleges that following her complaint she was bullied by other staff at the College. 3. The President began an investigation into Ms Heaton's complaints but on 27 April 2020 the complaint against the College was declined under s 92(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act). The reasons given by the President for declining the complaint against the College were: * Ms Heaton had not provided any information which was sufficient to establish that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her disability; * the College had taken appropriate steps to remedy or redress the conduct complained of; * Ms Heaton had refused to engage in any attempts to resolve the complaint with the College; and * the subject matter of the complaint had been dealt with by several other persons and bodies. 1. The complaint against Ms Paton was declined under s 92(1)(a)(vi) of the Act on the basis that: * the College had taken appropriate steps to remedy or redress the conduct complained of; and * Ms Heaton had refused to engage in any attempts to resolve the complaint with Ms Paton. 1. Ms Heaton asked that her complaints be referred to the Tribunal. As the President has declined the complaints, they can only proceed before the Tribunal if the Tribunal grants leave (s 96 of the Act). 2. All parties appeared before the Tribunal at a hearing on 9 September 2020 in respect of the leave application. Ms Heaton was assisted by an Auslan interpreter. She argued that her complaint should be dealt with by the Tribunal as the College and Ms Paton have never addressed what happened. Both respondents submitted that Ms Heaton's complaints have little prospect of succeeding and state they have done everything possible to resolve her complaints. 3. For the reasons which follow, I have decided not to grant leave for the complaints to proceed.