Ellis v. Peel District School Board, 2010 HRTO 2272

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elroy Ellis

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board, Judith Nyman and Robert Garton

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: November 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2272

Indexed as; Ellis v. Peel District School Board

APPEARANCES BY

Elroy Ellis, Applicant ) Self-represented

Peel District School Board, Judith Nyman ) Roy Filion, Counsel and Robert Garton, Respondents )

1The applicant alleges that the Peel District School Board (the “School Board”) and its employees discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour.

Allegations against the School Board

2In May 2005 the applicant wrote to School Board officials alleging that students at his school were being sexually assaulted by teachers and that the administration was covering up indictable offences.

3The School Board asked for specific information about the alleged sexual assaults and reminded the applicant of his obligation to report such incidents to the appropriate authorities.

4The School Board alleges that the applicant delayed in providing the required information until June 16, 2005, at which time they were able to report the potential sexual assault to the Children’s Aid Society.

5The School Board conducted an investigation into the applicant’s alleged failure to report in a timely fashion, his insubordinate behaviour and his apparent inability to respect the authority of his superiors. This lead to a disciplinary meeting on June 27, 2005, and the suspension of the applicant from work, with pay.

6In July 2005 the School Board notified the Ontario College of Teachers of the applicant’s alleged failure to report, insubordination and refusal to recognize authority.

7The applicant alleges that the School Board reported him to the College of Teachers because he is Black. He points out that White teachers who were present at a January 2005 hockey assault and who did not report the incident were not reported to the College.

8Alternatively, the applicant alleges that the School Board reported him to the College as reprisal for his having reported the White teacher in relation to the hockey incident.

9The applicant retained a Black lawyer to assist him in his dealings with the College of Teachers. The applicant alleges that when Judith Nyman, Assistant Director of the School Board, learned that the applicant would be represented by a Black lawyer before the College, she said to the applicant that if they had known that the Board would have taken even more severe action against him.

10Rob Garton, principal of the school where the above events occurred in 2005, testified. He confirmed that there was an incident between a teacher and a student at a floor hockey game in January 2005. This was reported to him by two teachers and the applicant. He spoke to the teacher, the student, referees and other witnesses. As a result of his investigation, the student was suspended for three games and the teacher was removed from the hockey league. Both participants advised him that they were satisfied with this result.

11Judith Nyman testified and denied making the comment about the applicant’s representative.

12The respondents asked me to dismiss the Application for being out of time (filed more than one year after the events) and for not establishing a prima facie case of discrimination apart from the alleged comment by Ms. Nyman. Having heard the evidence, I have decided to dismiss the Application on the merits.

13The applicant has not put forward any evidence, other than his belief, that the School Board reported him to the College because he is Black. The evidence before me demonstrates that the School Board had cause to report the applicant for delaying in reporting a potential sexual assault of a student and no evidence whatsoever that the applicant’s colour played a role in the decision. The applicant asked that I infer discrimination because the School Board failed to take action in a similar situation regarding White teachers. However, the evidence established that the hockey incident was reported promptly by some of the teachers and therefore was not a comparable situation.

14With respect to the alleged comment made by Ms. Nyman, I conclude that it was not made. I find that the applicant was not a reliable witness. His evidence was unfocused and disorganized. He made bald allegations that were unsupported by any corroborating evidence, such as that School Board employees “tampered with the evidence” and attempted to “frame me.” Referring to the hockey incident, he made unsubstantiated assertions that the School Board was attempting to cover up “indictable offences.” The evidence of Mr. Garton, which was uncontradicted, is that the hockey incident was promptly investigated and dealt with. Ms. Nyman was a credible witness. It appears to me not in keeping with the preponderance of probabilities that someone so senior in the School Board hierarchy would have made such a blatantly racist remark.

Production Requests and Summons to Witness

15The applicant sought production of various documents and sought to issue summons to various witnesses to make out his case against the respondents. I have determined that the production requested is not arguably relevant and would not assist the applicant to support his allegations. Similarly, I have determined that the evidence the witnesses the applicant sought to summons would not assist him. Accordingly, I deny the applicant’s request for production and summons. These are my reasons.

16The applicant sought to summons Frank Cillelli, a teacher who witnessed the hockey “assault,” to testify that it was reported to the school principal. The applicant sought to summons Paul Carter, a teacher who witnessed the January 2005 hockey incident, to say that it was a serious assault and that the respondents were “covering it up.” He also wanted to summons the student who was involved in the hockey incident to say that he was “brutally assaulted” and that the school covered it up. This witness was also to testify that he did not discuss the matter with the applicant until June 2005. The applicant wanted to call this student’s parents to testify that there was a bruise on his neck as a result of the hockey incident.

17The applicant wanted to summons three students from one of his classes who wrote supposedly “fictitious accounts” of a sexual assault, which led to the applicant writing to the School Board. These students were to testify that they wrote their notes as part of the class assignment. The applicant also wanted to call the parents of one of these students to confirm that they were advised by the school that the events had been reported to the Children’s Aid Society. The applicant sought production of documents by the School Board to demonstrate that the three students above were special basic students whose school term ended by June 14, 2005.

18The applicant sought to summons other Black superintendents to testify that they shared similar experiences of discrimination. The applicant sought to call the Vice Principal of the school to testify that he reported the hockey situation to her by leaving messages on her telephone. The applicant wanted to summons the school social worker to testify about when she reported the sexual assault to the Children’s Aid Society. The applicant sought to summons the principal of a school near airport road to whom he reported the hockey assault in the presence of two police officers in June 2005.

19In terms of production, the applicant asked me to order the School Board to supply the names of individuals who “tampered with documents” and any documents relating to the evidence Ms. Nyman and others gave to the College of Teachers.

20In my view, none of the above witnesses or documents would be helpful or relevant to assist me to determine the issues in this Application.

21The Application is dismissed.