HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
M.M. on behalf of G.M
Applicant
-and-
Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board/Delta Secondary School and George Brooks
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: G.M. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board
APPEARANCES
G.M, Applicant
M.M., Self-represented
Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board/Delta Secondary School and George Brooks, Respondents
Jane M. Gooding, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34(5) of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to educational services because of race, colour, ethnic background, creed, family status, association, and reprisal. The Application is filed on behalf of G.M. (the “applicant”), who was a sixteen year-old student at the time of the events, by his father M.M. (the “claimant””).
2In a Case Assessment Direction (the “CAD”) dated April 22, 2012, the Tribunal directed that the respondents did not need to file a Response and that a Summary Hearing would be held in this matter.
3On June 22, 2012, a bilingual Summary Hearing was held via telephone conference. The services of a French-English Interpreter were made available to the parties. The respondents were not called upon to make submissions.
BACKGROUND
4As the respondents were not required to file a Response or to provide submissions, the summary of the facts in this Decision is based solely on the events as set out in the Application and the oral submissions.
5The applicant was enrolled as a student at Delta Secondary School (the “School”), which is part of the respondent Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (the “Board”).
6On May 4, 2012, the applicant was in a manufacturing technology class taught by the personal respondent (“the teacher”). A number of students were disrupting the class and the teacher concluded that the conduct was dangerous and could pose a health and safety risk in the future. As punishment, the teacher decided that all of the students had to stay after class to observe a period of silence for ten minutes. At the conclusion of the ten minutes, the teacher advised all of the students that they had to observe a further punishment which was to stay for an additional five to ten minutes because they had not been quiet enough.
7The applicant, together with some other students, approached the teacher and told him that he had to keep his word that the punishment would only last ten minutes and they should be allowed to leave the classroom. The teacher told the students that they had to observe the additional punishment. The applicant, together with some other students left the classroom without observing the punishment and without the teacher’s permission.
8The next day, the applicant returned to the classroom. The teacher advised the students who had left the day before without observing the punishment that they had to observe a period of ten minutes of silence. The applicant refused and left the classroom and went home.
9The next day, the applicant returned to the classroom and was advised by the teacher that instead of observing the ten minute period of silence, he would have to rewrite a health and safety test. The applicant refused and was sent home. The applicant appears to have been suspended for three days.
10The matter was never resolved between the parties and the applicant withdrew from the manufacturing course, after confronting his teacher and accusing him of racism. The claimant also wrote to the school accusing it of racism and claiming that the applicant had been the victim of harassment and discrimination.
11During the hearing, I asked the claimant why he believed that the teacher’s conduct was related to any of the Code grounds identified in the Application. The claimant responded that it was the teacher’s fault because he could not maintain control over the students in his class. Instead, of punishing the entire class, the teacher should have determined exactly which students were involved in the disruption and punished them individually. It is the claimant’s position that he was correct in standing up to the teacher and refusing to accept any punishment.
12The claimant did agree that the applicant was treated the same as the other students who refused the punishment. However, he explained that the applicant reacted differently because he is from a “mentality that does not accept humiliation.” The claimant noted that, in the classroom of twenty students, there were no other students from the same background as the applicant.
DECISION
13Having reviewed both the written and oral submissions of the applicant, I find that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success and is dismissed for the reasons that follow.
14The Tribunal explains the nature of the test for summary hearing in the decision of Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. [8 and 9](https://www.canlii.org/