Tsehai v. Durham District School Board, 2015 HRTO 794

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Noah Tsehai Applicant

-and-

Durham District School Board, John Bowyer, Andrea Pemberton and Warren Palmer Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eva Nichols Date: June 15 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 794 Indexed as: Tsehai v. Durham District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Noah Tsehai, Applicant Osborne G. Barnwell, Counsel

Durham District School Board, John Bowyer, Andrea Pemberton, Warren Palmer, Respondents Kathryn Bird, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, disability, age and reprisal.

2A hearing in this matter began in Toronto on February 19, 2015 and is scheduled to continue on June 23, 24, 25 and 30 and October 6, 7 and 8, 2015.

3This Interim Decision is in response to the applicant’s Form 10 Request for an Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”), submitted to the Tribunal on June 4, 2015.

4On June 10, 2015, the respondents submitted their Form 11 response to this RFOP.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR ORDER

5The applicant has requested the disclosure of the methodology and findings of a study on safety and racism (“racial data”), apparently collected by Superintendent Doug Crichton and cited by the Superintendent in his discussions with the applicant’s mother about the applicant’s educational placement at D.A. Wilson S.S.

THE RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO THE RFOP

6The respondents submitted that the RFOP should be denied on the following grounds:

• The Durham District School Board (“DDSB”) does not collect “racialized data” relating to the course selections made by students in its schools;
• The DDSB has not prepared a “study on safety and racism”, as cited by the applicant;
• Mr. Doug Crichton denies advising the applicant’s mother that “racialized data” was (sic) collected or that any such data were relevant to the applicant’s educational experience while he was a resident pupil of the DDSB;
• Therefore, in these circumstances, the DDSB is not able to provide the requested information/documentation.

DECISION

7In considering the applicant’s request, I am guided by the Tribunal’s Rule 16, which states that parties are expected to disclose all arguably relevant documents in their possession.

8Although the information cited by the applicant may have proven to be arguably relevant to this Application, I accept the respondents’ statement that the document or the cited data do not exist and therefore cannot be disclosed.

ORDER

9The applicant’s request for order is therefore denied.