HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
H. G.
Applicant
-and-
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and Dave Petrie
Respondents
CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: H.G. v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
APPEARANCES BY
H. G., Applicant ) On her own behalf
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board ) and Dave Petrie, Respondents ) Roger Mills, Counsel
[1] This is an Application made under s. 53(3) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”), dated December 30, 2008. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on January 10, 2008.
[2] The applicant alleges that she experienced discrimination because of her race, colour and family status arising out of certain events which occurred during the school years in 2006 and 2007 in relation to her son. Because some of the issues raised in this proceeding involve highly personal information pertaining to the applicant’s minor son, I have anonymized the applicant’s name in this proceeding in order to protect the identity of her son. To further protect the identity of the applicant’s son, I also have not named the elementary school that he was attending at the relevant time, which shall be referenced only as the “School”.
[3] The Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) in this matter was held in Ottawa on February 18, 2010 in accordance with the expectation, expressed in the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications, that section 53(3) applications proceed in a highly expeditious manner. On consent of all parties, I took the lead in questioning the witnesses and heard from the applicant and the personal respondent, Dave Petrie.
[4] The applicant is a Black woman and single mother. Her son began attending the School in September 2006.
[5] The personal respondent, Mr. Petrie is the Principal at the School. Peter Gamwell, the Superintendent of Instruction for the respondent school board and Dan Wiseman, the person employed at the relevant time by the respondent school board as the Manager of Safe Schools and Community Liaison, were also present at the hearing, but I did not find it necessary to hear from these latter two individuals in order to determine the issues raised in this Application.
[6] The applicant’s complaint relates a chronology of events commencing on October 16, 2006 and ending on December 4, 2007. As it was not clear to me whether the applicant was alleging discrimination in relation to each of these events and if so how, I sought this clarification from the applicant at the outset of the hearing. I also clarified with the applicant that this complaint relates to allegations that she herself had experienced discrimination in violation of the Code as a result of the actions of the respondents, and was not a complaint filed on behalf of her son. As a result, any allegations that the applicant’s son experienced discrimination in relation to how he was treated at the School or the discipline imposed upon him were not before me.
[7] The applicant confirmed that there was nothing about her discussion with Mr. Petrie on October 16, 2006 that she is alleging amounts to a violation of the Code.
[8] On November 27, 2006, there was a meeting held to discuss an Itinerant Educational Assistant (“IEA”) support program to be implemented with the applicant’s son. The applicant’s evidence is that she informed the board representatives at this meeting, which included Mr. Petrie and Mr. Wiseman, about an IEA program that had been implemented at her son’s previous school. The respondents state that, in fact, it was a behavioural plan that had been implemented by the previous school, and this plan had been tried and was not working at the School. The applicant states that her input was ignored at this meeting, and she felt that she was not being heard or listened to. However, in response to a specific question from me, the applicant stated that she did not feel that her race was a factor on this particular day and she did not raise any other basis to support an allegation of discrimination in relation to this meeting.
[9] The applicant’s complaint next makes reference to the fact that by November 15, 2006, she had retained a consultant, Dr. Janet Haynes, to assist her with her son’s situation at the school. The complaint includes a general allegation that, since that time, the behaviour of Mr. Petrie became intolerable and he dealt with her son in an intolerable manner. I clarified with the applicant that there was no allegation in relation to any event that occurred on November 15, 2006, and that any specific events relating to this general allegation were specifically dealt with later in her complaint.
[10] The applicant’s complaint next refers to a meeting that took place with Mr. Petrie in February 2006. The applicant attended this meeting with Dr. Haynes and her associate Chris Haynes, both of whom are also Black. The applicant alleges that Mr. Petrie said that he was “very uncomfortable” having the applicant and these two other individuals in his office. The applicant’s complaint also alleges that during this meeting, Mr. Petrie found it necessary to mention that he had fed lunch to the applicant’s children, when the truth is that it was just cheese and crackers and the applicant had never sent her sons to school without lunch.
[11] In her evidence at the hearing, the applicant said that Mr. Petrie’s statement about being “very uncomfortable” was made at the end of the meeting “in regards to us barging in on him” and that what he said was that “he felt very uncomfortable in our presence”. The applicant doesn’t think that Mr. Petrie should feel uncomfortable dealing with a parent, and states that it was no surprise to Mr. Petrie that she was there in his office as the meeting had been set up in advance. The applicant does, however, acknowledge that she did not inform Mr. Petrie in advance of the meeting that she would be attending with the two consultants. The applicant’s evidence is that Mr. Petrie seemed a bit frustrated by the end of the meeting. She believes that his statement about feeling uncomfortable was related to her race and the race of the two consultants.
[12] Mr. Petrie’s evidence was that by the time of the meeting in February 2006, his relationship with the applicant had ceased to be productive. It was clear from the evidence before me that both parties were frustrated by this point. The applicant felt that the school was unfairly disciplining her son, while Mr. Petrie felt that the applicant was acting as an impediment to getting the help for her son that the school felt was needed.
[13] Mr. Petrie’s evidence is that, before the February 2006 meeting, the pronoun “I” was used by the applicant to say who would be attending. However, when the applicant arrived, she motioned for two people to follow. Mr. Petrie states that he was surprised to see three people come through the door. He states that he felt that there was a deliberate plan to surprise him and it worked. He says that he felt intimidated.
[14] Mr. Petrie recalls saying at the end of the meeting that he thought he had the right to know who he was meeting with, and that he would appreciate in future knowing who would be attending any meeting. It was in this context that Mr. Petrie said that he felt “unsafe”. He says that Dr. Haynes leaned forward and said “unsafe?”, and then her associate leaned forward and said, “he’s right, you can’t tell him how to feel” and that Mr. Petrie’s request to know who was attending the meeting was a “reasonable request”.
[15] In response to my questions as to what he meant by feeling “unsafe”, Mr. Petrie stated that “unsafe” is word used frequently in an elementary school, and in that context it means physically safe and emotionally safe. Mr. Petrie states that in the context of the meeting, he didn’t feel physically threatened, but he felt that there had been a deliberate attempt to surprise him and catch him off guard. He states that this worked, and he felt intimidated and his mouth was dry. It was in this context that Mr. Petrie felt “unsafe”.
[16] In her evidence in reply, the applicant acknowledged that the word used by Mr. Petrie was “unsafe” and not “uncomfortable” as she had alleged.
[17] I certainly can understand the applicant’s perception that her race and the race of the two individuals attending the meeting may have been a factor in Mr. Petrie stating that he felt “unsafe”. However, on hearing and understanding Mr. Petrie’s evidence, I find that this statement was related to Mr. Petrie’s feeling of having been ambushed and intimidated by the presence of two other individuals whom he had not been told would be attending the meeting, particularly in the context of the strained relationship that had developed between him and the applicant by that time. Accordingly, I do not find that the applicant’s race or colour was a factor in Mr. Petrie making this statement.
[18] The applicant’s evidence regarding Mr. Petrie making a statement at this meeting about feeding her children lunch was more vague. At the hearing, her evidence was that Mr. Petrie actually said that he fed her son cheese and crackers, and then she acknowledged that she does not have a precise recollection as to what exactly Mr. Petrie said.
[19] Mr. Petrie doesn’t recall mentioning cheese and crackers. He states that part way through the conversation, he felt that Dr. Haynes was implying that the School was an uncaring and unfeeling school, and that they did not understand the plight of young urban Black children living in poverty. Mr. Petrie states that he was upset by that, and was feeling a little intimidated and ganged up on and was a little defensive. He states that he said that the School serves children from under-privileged neighbourhoods, and provides many services to these children. He says that he mentioned that the school provides clothing, material support for prescription medication, glasses, grocery coupons, and funds March break camps. He also mentioned that children come to the school to eat breakfast before the start of the school day and they can eat lunch at the school as well. Mr. Petrie states that the only specific reference he made to the applicant’s son related to a day when the child was suspended from riding the bus, and with the applicant’s permission, Mr. Petrie picked him up from home and drove him to school.
[20] Once again, I appreciate that the applicant is a proud mother to her son, and may have perceived that Mr. Petrie was implying that she was not taking proper care of her son. However, I am satisfied on the evidence that Mr. Petrie was feeling challenged and somewhat defensive at the meeting, and made his comments about providing food for children attending the school in the context of responding to his perception that the consultant was implying that the School was an uncaring school. I do not find that the applicant’s race, colour or family status was a factor in the comments made by Mr. Petrie at this meeting.
[21] The next issue raised by the applicant relates to a meeting held at the school on June 12, 2007 which was attended by herself, Dr. Haynes and Mr. Petrie. At this meeting, the Ontario Student Record (‘OSR”) for the applicant’s son was reviewed. Dr. Haynes left the meeting first to attend another appointment, and was followed shortly afterwards by the applicant. After Dr. Haynes and the applicant had left his office, Mr. Petrie could not locate the OSR file. He says that he asked his secretary whether she had picked up the file, and she said she hadn’t. Mr. Petrie’s states that as the applicant was the last one to leave the meeting and had gathered some papers together before leaving, he wondered whether she had mistakenly picked up the OSR file. He went out into the hallway to ask her about this. It is at this point that the versions of what transpired between Mr. Petrie and the applicant diverge.
[22] The applicant’s evidence is that she was standing in a doorway, and Mr. Petrie called after her. When he got closer, the applicant says that Mr. Petrie asked her if she had taken her son’s OSR file, and she said no. The applicant states that Mr. Petrie then asked, “are you sure?” and she said, “I answered you the first time, I said no”. The applicant states that she later learned that the secretary had taken the OSR file and put it back, but there was no apology about what she regards as an accusation that she had taken the file.
[23] In her complaint, the applicant alleges that Mr. Petrie accused her of “lying” to him. In her evidence before me, the applicant states that this refers to the fact that Mr. Petrie asked if she was sure she didn’t have the file. The applicant’s evidence is that Mr. Petrie’s voice when he asked her the second time had a tone of sarcasm and disbelief, which made her feel that he didn’t believe what she was saying.
[24] Mr. Petrie testified that he remembers this event very clearly, and that because he knew that the applicant didn’t trust him and that she regarded much of what he said with suspicion, he chose his words that day very carefully. He states that he headed down the hall and asked the applicant very carefully and deliberately, “is there a chance you picked up [name of son]’s OSR by mistake?” Mr. Petrie states that the applicant stopped halfway through a set of doors and she said no. He says that the applicant was holding a bag of papers, and she motioned forward as though inviting him to look in the bag. Mr. Petrie states that he put his hands up in a stop motion, and said, “no, if you’re sure, then I’m sure”, to which the applicant responded angrily, “excuse me?” Mr. Petrie states that he stepped back with his hands up again and repeated himself, and then walked down the hall. Mr. Petrie testified that it is not possible that he could have said “are you sure?” as he was communicating very clearly and deliberately at that time. Mr. Petrie agrees that the OSR file was located by his secretary.
[25] Mr. Petrie states that it would make no sense for him to accuse the applicant of stealing her son’s OSR, and that stealing this file would be pointless and nothing could be gained from that. He states that the OSR file was something that the applicant already had copies of, so there would be no need for her to steal it.
[26] In her evidence in reply, the applicant acknowledges that Mr. Petrie’s initial question was asked in a format where it wasn’t taken by her to be threatening. While she doesn’t recall opening her bag to show Mr. Petrie, the applicant’s evidence is that if she did that, it would have been in response to the second time Mr. Petrie asked. The applicant doesn’t recall Mr. Petrie holding his hands up in a stop motion, and she also doesn’t recall Mr. Petrie saying, “if you’re sure, I’m sure”.
[27] In my view, the underlying context of this incident is significant. On both parties’ evidence, there was a lack of trust between the applicant and Mr. Petrie, which had developed over the course of their dealings with each other in relation to the applicant’s son. I can certainly appreciate a principal’s concern over a student’s OSR that had gone missing, as there are statutory requirements under the Education Act relating to the maintenance and confidentiality of an OSR file. I accept Mr. Petrie’s evidence that he did first ask his secretary whether she had taken the file, and that he was erroneously told that she hadn’t. In these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for Mr. Petrie to have then gone out to ask the applicant whether she had the file.
[28] Even if Mr. Petrie asked the applicant a second time whether she was sure, I find that this was due to his concern over locating the missing file and was not related to the applicant’s race, colour or family status. While, in the context of the lack of trust that had unfortunately developed between these two individuals, I can appreciate the applicant’s perception that Mr. Petrie was accusing her of not telling the truth, I do not find that this perception is an accurate reflection of the reality of the situation when considered in context.
[29] The next incident at issue in the complaint occurred on September 25, 2007. The applicant attended a meeting at the school that day with her son and Mr. Petrie. Both parties agree that during the course of that meeting, it became clear that the applicant’s son had told a different story to her about an incident that had occurred at the school than he had told to Mr. Petrie and that was in fact the truth. Mr. Petrie’s evidence is that, upon learning this, the applicant became extremely angry with her son. The applicant acknowledges being upset, but denies being angry. She states that she was not yelling at her son, but her voice may have risen a bit and she was abrupt and straight to the point. She states that she wanted her son to know that she was not afraid to scold him in front of anyone.
[30] Mr. Petrie’s evidence is that the applicant’s son was serving an in-school suspension that day as a result of an incident from the previous evening, and was working outside Mr. Petrie’s office. Mr. Petrie’s evidence is that, in keeping any student at his office for the day, his purpose is to try to restore the relationship between the student and principal which is sometimes compromised when consequences are imposed. He states that he was also very concerned with the applicant’s son that day, because he had cried repeatedly in Mr. Petrie’s office and afterwards was very still and quiet which is something he rarely did.
[31] Mr. Petrie states that, in an attempt to find a positive out of the morning, he congratulated the applicant’s son for telling the truth and said, “as long as you tell the truth, we can always help make it better”. Mr. Petrie states that the applicant’s son responded by saying he couldn’t tell the truth, to which Mr. Petrie replied that he had done so that morning and could always tell the truth. Mr. Petrie states that at this point, the applicant’s son said, “I can’t tell the truth, she hits me with a belt when I’m bad, that’s what she does”.
[32] Mr. Petrie testified that, as an educator, he has received extensive training in how he is supposed to deal with a situation like this. As this was a report of potential physical abuse, he needed to contact the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) and he did so. He also states that he was trained not to probe further and to leave that to the CAS worker, and that he also was trained not to contact the parent directly in these circumstances. I accept Mr. Petrie’s evidence in this regard, which is consistent with his obligations in such circumstances.
[33] When Mr. Petrie contacted the CAS, he was told to get the applicant’s two sons and to keep them in separate rooms to be interviewed by a CAS worker. The CAS worker did not arrive at the school until well after the school day had ended. After interviewing the children, the CAS worker made a decision to apprehend the children from the applicant and place them in a foster home.
[34] While waiting for the CAS worker to arrive, Mr. Petrie states that he contacted Mr. Gamwell and Mr. Wiseman to report what had happened. On this call, Mr. Petrie expressed his concern about how the applicant might react were she to find out that the CAS was involved, in the context of the strained and difficult relationship that had developed between the applicant and Mr. Petrie. As a result of this discussion, Mr. Petrie contacted the police and two police officers attended at the school. Mr. Petrie’s evidence is that it was the CAS worker who decided to have the police officers accompany her to the applicant’s home to apprehend the children.
[35] Mr. Petrie states that, in consultation with Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Gamwell and the CAS worker, they agreed that in the best interests of the physical safety of the children and in the best interests of the emotional safety of himself and his staff, the applicant should be served with a trespass notice prohibiting her from coming on to school property. As a result, a trespass notice was prepared to be delivered to the applicant by one of the police officers. Apparently, this did not happen at the time of the apprehension, and the trespass notice was delivered a day or two later by the school resource officer.
[36] At the hearing, the applicant raised several issues arising out of these events. Some of the issues raised relate to the decision by the CAS to apprehend her children and to the conduct of the CAS worker and the police when they attended at her home to do so. In this regard, I note that the police and the CAS are not respondents to this proceeding, and their alleged conduct is not at issue before me in this proceeding.
[37] With regard specifically to Mr. Petrie’s actions, the applicant raises an issue as to why Mr. Petrie was questioning her son. Her evidence is that she was told by her son that he had been called to Mr. Petrie’s office, and was asked what the applicant did when he got in trouble. Though the applicant’s son was present on the morning of the hearing, he did not testify before me and the applicant’s evidence as to how the information came forward from her son is hearsay evidence, as the applicant herself was not present when the event occurred. I prefer Mr. Petrie’s evidence on this point as to both the fact that the applicant’s son was serving an in-school suspension that day, and therefore would not have been called down to Mr. Petrie’s office, and that the information came forward in the manner stated by Mr. Petrie.
[38] The applicant also takes issue that Mr. Petrie was questioning her son, who is a minor, without her being present. While I have found that Mr. Petrie did not question the applicant’s son in the manner alleged, I note that, as a school principal, Mr. Petrie has every right to speak to a minor student without a parent being present.
[39] The applicant also believes that her race and colour were factors in Mr. Petrie’s decision to call the CAS. She questions why, based on one statement made by her son, Mr. Petrie would think that she was such a threat that he needed to call the CAS. She questions why Mr. Petrie wouldn’t have called her first to discuss the matter with her. She does not deny hitting her son at times with a belt, but states that this is the way that she was brought up and that there is a need to understand different cultures and how people learn. The applicant clarified that she is not saying that all Black parents beat their children, but she should not have been “hostilized” in the way that she was and that proper protocols were not followed.
[40] In my view, Mr. Petrie conducted himself in an entirely appropriate manner in the circumstances. He became aware of information from the applicant’s son that his mother hits him with a belt when she is angry. That is a very serious matter. Mr. Petrie did not make his own assessment of the truth or seriousness of this information, but instead contacted the CAS as the appropriate authority to deal with the situation. From that point, the matter was out of Mr. Petrie’s hands in terms of how the children’s best interests would be assessed by the CAS in accordance with its mandate. I accept and agree with Mr. Petrie’s evidence that upon receiving such information, it was his training and responsibility to contact the CAS, and I also accept and agree with his evidence that in such circumstances it would not be appropriate for him to contact the parent directly. That is a judgment for the CAS to make, not for Mr. Petrie as an elementary school principal.
[41] The applicant further takes issue with the issuance of a trespass notice to her. I have heard and accept Mr. Petrie’s evidence that the decision to issue this notice was made in the context of the ongoing strained and difficult relationship between the applicant and Mr. Petrie and others at the school and out of concern for the applicant’s reaction to the involvement of the CAS. I further note that, at the time the trespass notice was prepared for delivery to the applicant, Mr. Petrie had been informed that the CAS had decided to apprehend the children and place them in foster care. As a result, as she would no longer be the children’s legal guardian while they were in foster care, there would be no need for the applicant to come onto school premises or to be in contact with the school.
[42] For all of the foregoing reasons, I do not find that the applicant’s race, colour or family status were factors in how Mr. Petrie received information from the applicant’s son, in how Mr. Petrie responded to this information, in Mr. Petrie’s decision to contact the CAS, or in the decision to issue the trespass notice.
[43] The applicant’s complaint also raises an issue about an Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) having been implemented while her son was in foster care. The evidence before me indicates that this occurred with the consent of her son’s legal guardian at the time, and that when her son was returned to her care, the school sought the applicant’s consent and discontinued the IEP when she refused to provide it. I see no basis for any finding of discrimination in relation to these events.
[44] The applicant’s complaint further raises an issue that the trespass notice was not lifted once her son returned to her care. The evidence before me indicates that, after the applicant’s son was returned to her care, she was called by Mr. Petrie and invited to a meeting to discuss the lifting of the trespass notice. The applicant’s evidence is that she does recall a phone call from Mr. Petrie about attending a meeting, but it was not clear to her what the meeting was about. She says that at this point, she had received numerous calls from Mr. Petrie and was exhausted. On this evidence, I find that a meeting was arranged by the respondent school board for December 13, 2007, which was not attended by the applicant.
[45] On that day, Mr. Petrie sent a letter to the applicant confirming that the applicant had not attended the scheduled meeting. The letter states that one of the purposes of the meeting was to discuss a plan to reinstate the applicant’s privilege to attend the school. As a consequence of the applicant’s failure to attend this meeting, the trespass notice remained in effect. I find that the trespass notice remained in effect due to the applicant’s failure to attend this meeting, and not for any discriminatory reason.
[46] There are two further incidents cited in the applicant’s complaint. The first relates to an occasion on November 28, 2007, which is the birthday of the applicant’s other son. At this time, the applicant’s children were still in foster care. The applicant sent some cookies to the school for her son to share with his classmates on his birthday. There is no dispute that these cookies were not delivered to her son until the end of the school day. Mr. Petrie’s evidence, which is uncontradicted, is that a man brought the cookies to the school to be given to the applicant’s son, but did not specify that they were to be given to him right away. Mr. Petrie candidly acknowledged in his evidence that he forgot about the cookies and only remembered them at the end of the day, when he gave them to the applicant’s son. He states that if he had been asked to give them to the child at an earlier time, he would have done so. As there is no evidence before me to indicate that Mr. Petrie was asked to give the cookies to the child at any particular time that day, there is no foundation to support the applicant’s allegation.
[47] Finally, the applicant’s complaint cites an incident from September 2007 involving her son and another boy in his class. As a result of this incident, the applicant wanted her son moved, but the teacher would not agree to do so. Mr. Petrie’s evidence is that the teacher told him that she wanted to work on restoring the relationship between the two boys, and thought that separating them would only make things worse. Mr. Petrie states that he told this teacher to separate the two boys, as this was what was being requested by the applicant, and the teacher did so. The teacher involved in this incident is a Black woman. I find no basis to sustain any allegation of discrimination arising out of this incident.
[48] From the evidence she gave before me, it is clear that the applicant is a person who cares very deeply about the welfare of her children. I can appreciate her frustration over the school not acting in what she thought were her son’s best interests, just as I can appreciate the frustration of Mr. Petrie arising out of his perception that the applicant was impeding his efforts to address her son’s best interests. This is what underlies the strained and difficult relationship that developed between these two individuals, which led in my view to the applicant’s perception that she was experiencing discrimination. However, after hearing and considering all of the relevant evidence, I do not find that either of the respondents engaged in discrimination in violation of the Code.
[49] For all of these reasons, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of June, 2010.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair