AiLian Ou v. Sheridan Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, 2012 HRTO 2246

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

AiLian Ou

Applicant

-and-

Sheridan Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: November 30, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2246

Indexed as: Ou v. Sheridan Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning

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").

2By Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") dated November 23, 2012, the applicant was directed:

a. to immediately remove the recording of the hearing from YouTube and to immediately provide the respondent and the Tribunal with a copy of the recording;

b. to refrain from making any further ultimatums to the Tribunal; and,

c. to immediately cease from including unnecessary and inflammatory rhetoric in any material filed with the Tribunal or exchanged with the respondent.

3As of the date of this Decision the recording of the hearing remains posted on YouTube and the respondent and the Tribunal have not been provided with a copy of the recording.

4In her written submissions dated November 27, 2012, the applicant acknowledges having received the CAD. Despite the Tribunal's clear direction to refrain from making further ultimatums to the Tribunal, the applicant submits:

The Respondent's lawyer, Brenda J. Bowlby, pleaded the Tribunal to "rule that Ms. Carter did not commit perjury", knowingly instigated the Tribunal in conduct that is a violation of the applicable rules of judicial conduct and the Criminal Code of Canada. This is a serious violation of the Rule of Professional Conduct. The Tribunal is under the obligation to report Lawyer Brenda J. Bowlby's misconduct. Should the Tribunal fail to meet this obligation, the Applicant will take it up and report Ms. Bowlby's misconduct to the Law Society of Upper Canada, with full evidence.

5In her written submissions, the applicant continues to use unnecessary and inflammatory rhetoric which at times is racist and hateful. She submits that she "is entitled to freely express her thoughts and opinions on Islam by the law of Canada, the same human right of freedom of expression excised (sic) by Stephen Harper and Mark Steyn". In support of her opinion, she cites internet postings: "Muslims loving Hitler and Jewish genocide on Facebook" and "Hitler would be proud: Austrian Muslims Chant Death to the Jews".

6The Tribunal has stated as follows:

Parties before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario are involved in a legal proceeding. They are required to respect the Tribunal's orders and directions, even if they disagree with them. Where an applicant refuses to follow Tribunal directions, the Application may be dismissed as an abuse of process.

[E.E. v. conseil des écoles catholiques de langue français du Centre-Est, 2011 HRTO 2132 at para. 3; See also Marsden v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 HRTO 1933, and Felix v. Shoppers Drug Mart, 2011 HRTO 89.]

7The parties shall provide written submissions to the Tribunal as to whether this Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process. The respondent's submissions shall be filed with the Tribunal and served on the applicant within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant's submissions shall be filed with the Tribunal and served on the respondent within seven days after having received the respondent's submissions.

8The parties shall be prepared to provide oral submissions in this matter at the commencement of the telephone conference call hearing scheduled for January 7, 2013.