HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Oluwagbenga Adegorite
Applicant
-and-
York Region District School Board, Lisa Andersen, Dorothy Cammaert, and Ken Thurston
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Adegorite v. York Region District School Board
APPEARANCES
Oluwagbenga Adegorite, Applicant
Self-represented
York Region District School Board, Lisa Andersen, Dorothy Cammaert, and Ken Thurston, Respondents
Patricia Murray, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant, who is a 36-year-old Black man, was a casual Education Assistant (“EA”) in a secondary school in the respondent school board. He surreptitiously obtained the cell phone number of a 16-year-old female student, and then sent her approximately 30 text messages until late in the evening. The student complained to the administration of the school. The respondent school board conducted an investigation, and terminated the applicant’s employment.
2The applicant then filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), with this Tribunal, which alleged that the respondent school board terminated his employment for two Code-related reasons: (1) because he is a Black man, and (2) as a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code prior to the incident that led to the termination.
3The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it is has no reasonable prospect of success. The parties attended a hearing where they had the opportunity to make oral submissions and present documents and cases, which addressed this issue. I have decided to dismiss the Application. The following are my reasons for the dismissal.
BACKGROUND
4The following facts are not in dispute. The applicant began working as a casual EA for the respondent school board in 2010. A casual EA fills in for a full-time EA who has an unplanned temporary absence. The respondent school board has a dispatch department, which contacts and assigns casual EAs where there is a need. Casual EAs can be assigned to primary or secondary schools, and are normally assigned to several schools over the course of a school year.
5In April 2011, a teacher in a school where the applicant was working filed a written complaint with the principal, which essentially alleged that the applicant had made unwanted advances towards her. Specifically, she alleged that he had called her “beautiful” twice, asked her if she was happy with her boyfriend, asked her out for drinks, asked her where she lived, told her that he would do anything for her, and stood in close proximity to her.
6The applicant filed a written response to the teacher’s complaint, which admitted that he had told her that she was “good looking”, and if she lived closer to him, he might “have taken her out for a drink.” However, he stated, he did not think that she had taken offence to what he had said, and was shocked that she had complained.
7The principal released the applicant early from his assignment, and sent an incident report to the respondent school board, which set out what had happened, and requested that the applicant not be returned to the school. She also recommended, among other things, that the applicant receive training on the respondent school board’s Respectful Workplace policy.
8In October 2011, the applicant sent the respondent school board’s dispatch department an email, which requested that he not be assigned to elementary schools, which have recess outside, because he had still not adjusted to the cold, having come to Canada from Nigeria six years previously. The dispatch department refused to grant his request because it was not related to a medical issue.
9In February 2012, the applicant began working in a secondary school. He continued in the position, and in April 2012, became a temporary employee. This temporary position ended on June 27, 2012, and he reverted back to his status as a casual EA.
10In October 2012, the applicant’s wife delivered their baby prematurely. The baby was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit of the hospital. The applicant provided the respondent school board’s Human Resources (“HR”) department with a letter from a social worker at the hospital, which requested that he be granted flexibility in his work schedule if needed, and immediate leave from his duties should an emergency arise.
11In December 2012, the social worker provided the applicant with a further letter, which supported his request to be granted time off work because his baby was undergoing critical medical intervention and care.
12In the fall of 2013, the applicant, who was 35 years old, worked several times at the same secondary school, and became friendly with a 16-year-old female student. On December 9, 2013, he picked up her cell phone, and, without her knowledge, memorized her phone number. Later in the day, he called her several times, but she did not recognize the number, and did not answer her phone. Eventually, she sent a text message in response to the calls, which stated: “Okay, who is this?” The applicant then sent a message back to her, which stated: “Lol now u curious! Trouble finder! Lol.” He then sent further messages to her in which he identified himself, told her that he “secretly” took her number, and told her that he was trying to test her to see if she would answer a call from an unknown number.
13Over the following hours, the applicant sent more than 25 additional text messages to the female student. She responded to some of his messages, but the vast majority of messages exchanged were sent by him. If she did not respond, he would send her several messages in a row. If she responded assertively, he would send her a message that called her a “feisty woman”. He also sent her messages, which stated that he had been observing her demeanour in school, and asked her whether she was at work. He then sent her a message, which stated that he hoped that she was “mature enuf” to know that she should not tell anyone that they were texting. When she responded that “curiosity gets people in trouble”, he sent her several more messages asking her not to tell anyone that they were texting. His final text on this subject stated that he was “not trying to have anything secret” with her, but people might get the wrong idea. He sent his last message to her at 11:28 p.m.
14Following the exchange of text messages, the applicant deleted all the messages from his cell phone. The female student did not, and on December 11, 2013, she went to a guidance counsellor, and then met with the principal of the school to complain about the applicant’s conduct. She showed both of them the text messages on her phone, and the principal printed out screen shots of them. She also provided a written statement to the principal, which stated that the applicant had sent messages to her throughout the night, that she had tried to respond to his messages in an unpleasant and unencouraging manner, and that his messages asking her not to tell anyone that they had been texting had made her feel uncomfortable.
15The principal then called the applicant in for an interview. He also provided a written statement to her, which he entitled, “Texting a Student Out of Concern”. He stated that he took the student’s number and called her because he was aware that her ex-boyfriend had recently been released from jail, and he wanted to see if she would answer a call from an unknown number. He stated that he later sent her a text message, which indicated that he was proud that she had not picked up the phone, and then informed her that he did not want to continue texting because he did not want to give anyone ideas. He also stated that he deleted their exchange of text messages because his reason for contacting her was done.
16The principal suspended the applicant from employment with the respondent school board pending the results of an internal investigation. She also referred the matter to the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) and the police. The CAS declined to become involved in the matter because the student was not under 16 years of age, and the police did not charge the applicant because there was no evidence that a criminal offence had been committed.
17The respondent school board’s HR department then conducted an internal investigation, which included interviewing the applicant. The investigation found that the applicant’s actions in relation to the student constituted professional misconduct. On February 2, 2014, the respondent school board sent the applicant a letter, which notified him that his employment was terminated for cause.
18On February 5 and 13, 2014, the applicant sent two letters to the respondent school board, which sought to appeal the decision to terminate his employment. In the first letter, he admitted that he had made a “mistake” and had “done something wrong,” but he also stated that the student had shown an “unhealthy attachment” to him, and that she had complained to the school’s administration about his texting because she felt “rejected” when he sent her a message which stated that he did not want to have anything secret with her. He complained that the investigator had failed to look into this angle during the investigation process. He also argued that the respondent school board did not follow its policy on professional misconduct and progressive discipline when it skipped all the steps of progressive discipline and went straight to termination of employment.
19In the second letter, he argued that none of his text messages to the female student were sexual or threatening, and that if a female employee had done the same thing as he did, the respondent school board probably would not have investigated her or terminated her employment.
20The respondent school board sent two letters to the applicant in response, which denied his appeals. In the first letter, it noted that, in addition to the texting incident with the female student, he had also behaved inappropriately towards a female teacher in a different school in 2011, and had been blocked from being assigned to that school again. The letter concluded that his actions were of significant concern, and that it would not be in the best interest of students and staff to reinstate him into employment. The second letter was short, and indicated that the decision to terminate his employment would not be reversed.
21On March 3, 2014, the applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his race and sex, and subjected him to a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code. Specifically, he alleged the following.
22First, the applicant alleged that the respondent school board terminated his employment because he is a Black man. In support of this allegation, he stated the following:
The respondent school board’s HR department ignored its usual protocols and policies when it terminated his employment.
Despite the fact that the CAS and the police had concluded that there was nothing to investigate, the respondent school board’s HR department pursued an investigation against him.
During an interview with him, the respondent school board’s investigator asked him to define and explain the words in his messages, and gave a different meaning to the words because he is Black, speaks with an accent, and is male.
Despite the fact that there was a single event of texting with the female student, the investigation was aimed at finding him guilty of “grooming”.
If a White female EA sent similar text messages to a student, the respondent school board’s HR department would not have subjected her to an extensive investigation or terminated her employment.
23Second, the applicant alleged that the respondent school board terminated his employment as a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code. In support of this allegation, he stated the following:
In October 2011, despite the fact that he had an “undiagnosed” medical condition related to exposure to cold weather, the respondent school board’s HR department denied his accommodation request to be placed only in secondary schools, which do not have recess, unlike primary schools.
In October 2012, despite the fact that he provided a letter from the hospital’s social worker about the premature birth of his baby, the respondent school board’s HR department denied his accommodation request to be placed only in secondary schools, which have less exposure to germs and illnesses than primary schools.
24On June 3, 2014, the respondents filed a Response, which denied that the respondent school board terminated the applicant’s employment for discriminatory reasons, or as a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code. Rather, the respondents stated, the respondent school board terminated his employment solely because he inappropriately accessed a young female student’s phone, and then sent her numerous text messages, which amounted to professional misconduct.
25On June 17, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), which requested that his Application be amended to include a third alleged incident which led to the respondent school board terminating his employment as a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code. Specifically, he stated the following:
- In April 2012, the respondent school board’s HR department attempted to block him from having a casual assignment at a school converted into a temporary position after 30 days as per the collective agreement. He only obtained the position after he asserted his right to be placed in the position, and the principal and vice principal of the school intervened.
26The hearing of the merits of the Application was scheduled to take place on December 4 and 5, 2014. In advance of the hearing, the parties complied with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) on disclosure of documents and witnesses. The Tribunal then issued a Case Assessment Direction, which directed the parties to provide oral submissions at the outset of hearing addressing whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it has no reasonable prospect of success.
27The hearing took place as scheduled on December 4, 2014. I heard the parties’ submissions on the preliminary issue, and reserved my decision.
ANALYSIS
Should the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it has no reasonable prospect of success?
28The Application relates to ss. 5, 8 and 9 of the Code, which provide:
- (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
(…)
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.
No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.
29The applicant has the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that a violation of the Code has occurred. A balance of probabilities means that it is more likely than not a violation has occurred. Clear, convincing and cogent evidence is required in order to satisfy the balance of probabilities test. See F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 at para. 46.
30The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with or remedy general allegations of unfairness. The applicant must establish discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code, or reprisal as defined in the Code. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17.
31In order to establish a case of discrimination, the applicant must prove that (1) he is, or was perceived to be, a member of a group protected by the Code; (2) he was subjected to adverse treatment; and (3) a Code ground was a factor in the adverse treatment. See Shaw v. Phipps, 2010 ONSC 3884 at para. 47, upheld 2012 ONCA 155, and Communications, Energy & Paperworkers' Union of Canada (CEP), Local 789 v. Domtar Inc., 2009 BCCA 52 at para. 36.
32In the case at hand, there was no dispute that the applicant is a Black man, and that he received adverse treatment when the respondent school board terminated his employment. The main dispute is whether his race and sex were factors in the adverse treatment.
33In assessing allegations of discrimination, the following principles are applicable:
(a) The prohibited ground or grounds of discrimination need not be the sole or the major factor leading to the discriminatory conduct; it is sufficient if they are a factor;
(b) There is no need to establish an intention or motivation to discriminate; the focus of the enquiry is on the effect of the respondent's actions on the complainant;
(c) The prohibited ground or grounds need not be the cause of the respondent's discriminatory conduct; it is sufficient if they are a factor or operative element;
(d) There need be no direct evidence of discrimination; discrimination will more often be proven by circumstantial evidence and inference; and
(e) Stereotyping will usually be the result of subtle, unconscious beliefs, biases and prejudices.
See Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396, 116 OR (3d) 81 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 111-114.
34Furthermore, anti-Black racism and its subtle manifestations are well-recognized in Canadian law, including the recognition that racialization affects Black men in particular, often without the conscious involvement of those making decisions, through stereotypes of them as physical, violent, and more likely to be criminal. See Sinclair v. London (City), 2008 HRTO 48 at paras. 17-18.
35In order to establish a case of reprisal, the applicant must prove the following elements:
a) An action taken against, or threat made to, the applicant;
b) The alleged action or threat is related to the applicant having claimed, or attempted to enforce a right under the Code; and
c) An intention on the part of the respondent to retaliate for the claim or attempt to enforce the right.
See Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 33.
36In the case at hand, there was no dispute that the respondent school board took an action against the applicant when it terminated his employment. The main dispute is whether the termination was an intentional retaliation by the respondent school board against the applicant for having claimed his rights under the Code prior to the incident that led to the termination.
37Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules provides for a summary hearing, following which an application may be dismissed, in whole or in part, if the Tribunal finds that there is no reasonable prospect that the application or part of the application will succeed. Typically, summary hearings are held at a relatively early stage in the Tribunal’s process and involve receiving the applicant’s submissions on his or her legal theory and what evidence he or she anticipates calling at the merits hearing in support of the allegations.
38The principle that an application can be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success is not limited, though, to the initial early stage of the Tribunal’s process, and can be heard during the merits hearing. See Pellerin v. Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud, 2011 HRTO 1777 at para. 18. In some cases, the Tribunal will hear submissions on this issue at the outset of the hearing before the calling of any evidence.
39The approach to deciding whether an application has a reasonable prospect of success was explained in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 (“Dabic”) at paras. 8 and 9:
In some cases, the issue… may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.
In other cases, the focus… may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.
40The focus of the parties’ submissions was on the second branch of the Dabic test, namely, whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent school board terminated his employment because he is a Black man, or as a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code prior to the incident that led to the termination.
41For the Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that the applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code, or reprisal as defined in the Code. See Forde, above, at para. 17.
42I will deal first with the applicant’s allegation that the respondent school board terminated his employment because he is a Black man. In his submissions, the applicant argued that this allegation has a reasonable prospect of success largely by repeating the factual allegations and arguments that he made in his appeal letters to the respondent school board and his Application with this Tribunal (see paras. 18, 19 and 22 above).
43The applicant also raised new factual allegations and arguments. Specifically, he alleged that over a period of three years, the respondent school board offered other casual EAs who were White and female permanent positions, but did not offer him a permanent position. He also alleged that, in contrast to permanent staff, the respondent school board did not give him training on its policies and procedures, particularly with respect to professional misconduct. He further alleged that the respondent school board did not follow its policy and procedure on professional misconduct and progressive discipline by relying on an incident report (the teacher who complained that he had made unwanted advances towards her) which should have been removed from his employee file because of the passage of time. He stated that the respondent school board kept the incident report in his file because it had stereotyped him as a “dangerous” Black man.
44In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent school board terminated his employment because he is a Black man. In his submissions, the applicant largely relied upon bald factual allegations and speculation, and pointed to very little probative evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that can show that the respondent school board terminated his employment because he is a Black man.
45To start out with, the applicant’s allegations of discrimination must be viewed within the context of the undisputed facts about his conduct. The applicant was a 35-year-old man, and the student was a 16-year-old girl. He was also an EA and she was a student, which meant that he exercised considerable power over her, and was in a position of trust toward her. He picked up her cell phone at school, surreptitiously took her phone number, and texted her repeatedly until late in the evening. During the exchange of text messages, he told her several times not to tell anyone that they were texting. Following the exchange, he then deleted all the messages from his cell phone.
46The applicant argued that he can prove that there was discrimination by showing that the female student had an “unhealthy attachment” to him, and then complained to the school’s administration because she felt “rejected” by him. This argument relies on bald factual allegations. The exchange of text messages was initiated and largely conducted by him, not her, and there is no indication in her messages that she had an unhealthy attachment to him, or felt rejected by him. In his submissions, the applicant made no effort to point to any such evidence in her messages. Furthermore, despite having indicated in his first appeal letter to the respondent school board that there are witnesses who can support his allegation that the student had an “unhealthy attachment” to him, he is not proposing to call any of those witnesses before this Tribunal. Beyond making bald allegations, the applicant did not point to any evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that can show that the student had an “unhealthy attachment” to him, and then complained to the school’s administration because she felt “rejected” by him.
47The applicant’s argued that he can prove that there was discrimination by showing that the respondent school board had no reason to investigate his conduct because the CAS and the police had concluded that there was nothing to investigate. This argument relies on a bald assertion. The CAS and the police had different investigatory mandates than the respondent school board with respect to the applicant’s conduct. Specifically, the CAS had a mandate to investigate whether the female student was under 16 years of age and in need of protection, and the police had a mandate to investigate whether the applicant had committed a criminal offence. By contrast, the respondent school board had a mandate to investigate whether the applicant had committed misconduct within an employment context. Beyond making a bald assertion, the applicant did not point to any evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that can show that the respondent school board had no reason to investigate his conduct.
48The applicant argued that he can prove that there was discrimination by showing that the respondent school board’s investigator gave a different meaning to the non-sexual and non-threatening words in his text messages, and that a single event of texting does not constitute “grooming”. This argument is based on factual allegations that have little probative value. Beyond pointing out that there is no overt sexual or threatening content in his messages (which is true), and admitting that he had made a “mistake” and had “done something wrong,” he made no effort in his submissions to explain the meaning of his messages to the female student. He did not explain why he, a 35-year-old man, wrote messages to a 16-year-old female student in the style of a teenager rather than an adult. For example, he frequently used acronyms such as “LOL” and slang such as “cuz”, and made statements such as “cuz u partied all nite.” He also did not explain why he asked her personal questions such as “What r u doing btw? Yea rite now? LOL” and made a statement indicating that he had been observing her demeanour at school: “oh and u looked so bored @ room 220 when I came 4my coffee.” He also did not explain why he suggested that it would be immature for her to tell anyone that they were texting: “LOL hey hope ur mature enuf to know u can’t be telling anyone we talk rite?”
49The applicant argued that he can prove that there was discrimination by showing that the respondent school board ignored its usual protocols and policies when it terminated his employment. This argument relies on bald factual allegations. He alleged that the respondent school board did not follow its policy on professional misconduct and progressive discipline when it skipped all the steps of progressive discipline and went straight to termination of employment, but the respondent school board’s Procedure on Professional Misconduct and Progressive Discipline (#578), which he pointed to, clearly states that serious misconduct can result in the immediate termination of an employee’s employment. He also alleged the respondent school board did not follow the same policy and procedure when it relied on an incident report which should have been removed from his employee file because of the passage of time. However, Procedure #578 clearly states that discipline will be retained in an employee’s file for a minimum of three years. The incident report with respect to the teacher who complained that the applicant had made unwanted advances towards her is from April 2011 and the applicant’s employment was terminated in February 2014, which is within the three-year time frame. The applicant did not point to any other evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that can show that the respondent school board ignored its usual protocols and policies when it terminated his employment.
50The applicant argued that he can prove that there was discrimination by showing that the respondent school board did not give him training on its policies and procedures, particularly with respect to professional misconduct. In essence, he argued that he needed training to know that the type of conduct that he engaged in with the female student should have been avoided. This argument relies on a bald assertion. I will assume that it is true that the respondent school board did not give him training on its policies and procedures, including with respect to professional misconduct, during his tenure of employment. However, he was not a new employee when the incident with the student occurred. In fact, he had been employed as a casual EA for three years. More importantly, he sent the student several messages asking her not to tell anyone that they were texting, which, at the very least, indicates that he understood that other people could view his conduct as wrong. Beyond making a bald assertion, the applicant did not point to any evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that can show that he needed training to know that the type of conduct that he engaged in with the student should have been avoided.
51Most critically, however, at the end of the day the applicant pointed to very little probative evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that can show that the respondent school board terminated his employment because he is a Black man. He merely made bald and speculative allegations that the respondent school board stereotyped him as a “dangerous” Black man; that it gave a different meaning to the words in the text messages because he is Black, speaks with an accent, and is male; and that if a White female casual EA had done the same thing as he did, it would not have investigated her or terminated her employment.
52Accordingly, the applicant’s allegation that the respondent school board terminated his employment because he is a Black man is dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
53I will deal next with the applicant’s allegation that the respondent school board terminated his employment as a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code prior to the incident that led to the termination. In his submissions, the applicant argued that this allegation has a reasonable prospect of success largely by repeating the factual allegations and arguments that he made in his Application and his subsequent RFOP to amend his Application (see paras. 23 and 25 above).
54In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the termination of his employment was an intentional retaliation by the respondent school board against him for having claimed his rights under the Code prior to the incident that led to the termination. In his submissions, the applicant largely relied upon bald factual allegations and speculation, and pointed to very little probative evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that can show that the termination was an intentional retaliation by the respondent school board against him for having claimed his rights under the Code.
55The applicant argued that he can prove that there was reprisal by showing that the respondent school board terminated his employment in retaliation for having made an accommodation request in October 2011 to be placed only in secondary schools because of an “undiagnosed” medical condition. The main problems with this argument are the word “undiagnosed”, and the fact that he did not point to any evidence that he requested accommodation related to a disability-related need. In fact, his email request to the respondent school board’s dispatch department, which he pointed to, relates his request to not having adjusted to the cold after coming to Canada from Nigeria, not to a disability-related need. As such, the applicant did not point to any evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that can show that he had claimed his rights under the Code. Beyond making a bald allegation, he also did not point to any evidence that the termination of his employment was related to his request, or that the termination was an intentional retaliation by the respondent school board against him for having made such a request.
56The applicant argued that he can prove that there was reprisal by showing that the respondent school board terminated his employment in retaliation for an incident in April 2012 where the respondent school board’s HR department attempted to block him from having a casual assignment at a school converted into a temporary position, and he had to assert his right to be placed in the position. The main problem with this argument is that the assertion of his right was not with respect to Code-related discrimination. He did not point to any evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that can show that he had claimed his rights under the Code. Beyond making a bald allegation, he also did not point to any evidence that the termination of his employment was related to having asserted his right to be placed in the temporary position, or that the termination was an intentional retaliation by the respondent school board against him for having asserted such a right.
57The applicant argued that he can prove that there was reprisal by showing that the respondent school board terminated his employment in retaliation for having made an accommodation request in October 2012 to be placed only in secondary schools because of the premature birth of his baby. The October 2012 letter from a hospital social worker, which he pointed to, did not contain such a request, but in his submissions, he suggested that he made an oral request. I will therefore assume that it is true that he had requested accommodation of his needs related to his family status (i.e. being in a parent and child relationship), and had therefore claimed his rights under the Code. The problem is that, beyond making a bald allegation, he failed to point to any evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him that the termination of his employment was related to his request, or that the termination was an intentional retaliation by the respondent school board against him for having made such a request.
58Accordingly, the applicant’s allegation that the respondent school board terminated his employment as a reprisal for having claimed his rights under the Code prior to the incident that led to the termination is dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
ORDER
59The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of April, 2015.
“Signed by”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair