HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Andrew Wilson
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Catholic School Board, Ann Perron and Rosanna Topea
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Date: May 31, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 1040
Indexed as: Wilson v. Toronto Catholic School Board
APPEARANCES BY
Andrew Wilson, Applicant ) Self-represented
Toronto Catholic School Board, Ann Perron ) Paul Mathews, Counsel
And Rosanna Tropea, Respondents )
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of ancestry, ethnic origin, creed and reprisal or threat of reprisal.
2In a Case Assessment Direction, dated March 28, 2011, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing pursuant to Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which read as follows:
19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.
3The summary hearing was held by telephone conference call on May 19, 2011.
Background
4The applicant is a teacher employed by the respondent School Board. The personal respondent, Rosanna Tropea, is the principal of the school. The personal respondent, Ann Perron, is the School Board’s Director of Education.
5The Application relates to November 11, 2008. The school held a Remembrance Day ceremony. The applicant did not attend. The applicant alleges that he was “reprimanded” by Ms. Tropea, although he was not disciplined. In the Application, he alleges that Ms. Tropea stated “if it weren’t for the War, we would all be Germans.” The Application alleges that this was a discriminatory comment that demeaned people of German heritage. The applicant does not identify himself as a person of German heritage. The respondents deny that Ms. Tropea made the statement.
6The Application also indicates that the applicant felt that he experienced discrimination on the grounds of creed on the grounds that “I do not believe in War or the killing of innocent people. I do not glorify war by attending a Remembrance Day celebration.” He further alleges that he was not required to attend the ceremony because the collective agreement does not make this a requirement of his employment and because the ceremony on November 11, 2008 coincided with his teacher planning time.
7The Case Assessment Direction directed in part as follows:
The applicant will make his argument first, explaining why the Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. He must be prepared to make submissions that address the following issues, in particular:
The applicant alleges that the comment, “if it weren’t for the war, we’d all be Germans” discriminated against him on the basis of ancestry or ethnic origin. The applicant shall be prepared to explain how, in all the contexts, there is a reasonable prospect that such a comment would be found to be a violation of the Code.
The applicant alleges discrimination based on his creed because of consequences for non-attendance at the Remembrance Day assembly.
The applicant raises various matters related to the collective agreement, the unfairness of losing preparation time, and cites the reprisal provision of the Code. Reprisals are set out in s. 8 of the Code as follows:
Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.
The applicant does not appear to cite any facts that explain how any of the respondents’ actions could be found to be reprisals for claiming or enforcing his rights under the Code, instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code, or refusing to infringe a right of another person under the Code. He shall be prepared to explain how his reprisal claim could succeed, and how his claims based on the collective agreement and the loss of planning time could succeed.
The Summary Hearing
8At the summary hearing, the applicant advised that he now believes that the events on November 8, 2008 infringed his rights under the [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://www.