What did the Ministry actually check?

We asked about following the policy.

We asked Ontario’s college Ministry to check whether a career college followed the rules meant to protect students. Our family member asked whether the college followed its required policy after reported harassment. Personal incident details remain private.

Having a policy and following it are different questions. We asked what the Ministry had checked in practice. This sequence explains why that question matters.

January: the policy was assessed internally.

The Ministry’s own records contain an assessment dated January 21, 2026. It examined and quoted the required policy, then called the complaint “unsubstantiated.” The complaint-system history records submission for manager review that afternoon. We received no decision then.

On April 21, the inspector asked permission to ask the college about its procedures. Later, he said an earlier letter received outside his office or the complaint system would be an incomplete, unreleased draft. We want the records showing what the manager decided and whether a decision was approved or sent.

The records should explain how the January assessment was handled and what decision reached the student.

May and June: the college used the Ministry’s silence.

On May 10, our family warned the inspector and Ministry channels about the gap between having a policy and checking that it was followed. The warning raised how the college was using the Ministry’s involvement in the earlier legal process. We asked for an explanation and for the records to be kept. The warning appears in the Ministry’s own records.

On June 11, the college’s lawyer pointed to the April Ministry contact and the lack of a Ministry finding against the college when opposing the student’s request for temporary protection. A June 25 filing again pointed to the lack of Ministry action.

We asked the Ministry for protection. The college then used the lack of a finding against it to oppose protection for the student. Where was the student supposed to turn?

While the complaint remained open, the student’s education was interrupted and our family faced growing financial pressure. The college’s academic decisions, its funding warning and the Ministry’s actions each have their own dates and records.

September: the complaint was closed.

The September 25 decision closed the complaint, saying it fell outside what the Ministry could examine. The January assessment had examined the policy, discussed those limits and called the complaint unsupported.

Students need an answer they can follow. We want the records showing how the January assessment led to September’s final answer and how that answer addressed the complaint.

• What happened to the January assessment after manager review?
• What evidence and policy version were checked?
• What was communicated to the college?
• Who approved the final reason, and why?

October: senior officials stood by the handling.

We challenged the handling and asked for a different inspector, for records to be kept and for the newer complaint’s deadlines to be paused. The Deputy Minister referred the request to the Superintendent. On October 28, she stood by the handling, declined a different inspector and promised to keep the records. The reply in the newer file’s email chain attached the older decision.

Our family member objected that the newer complaint had not been answered. The student still needed an answer about her newer complaint and the protection she had requested.

We’re exhausted. We’re still here. Our case is built and Ontario has acknowledged our 60-day notice. Monthly support would help with legal work, case costs and the family bills that make continuing possible. The private case archive remains private.