Amazan v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 991

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Felix Amazan

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board, Norma Rios and Sylvie Talarico

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: July 24, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 991

Indexed as: Amazan v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Felix Amazan, Applicant

Self-represented

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 employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin.

2The applicant is an elementary school teacher employed by the respondent school board (the “Board”) and identifies himself as a black man from Haiti. Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed most of the allegations set out in the Application. See 2014 HRTO 751. The Application continues against the remaining respondents regarding an incident that occurred on March 6, 2013 between the applicant and Norma Rios. The applicant alleges that the respondents falsely accused him of workplace violence based on racist misperceptions that black men are violent, intimidating and aggressive.

3On June 30, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry. By letter dated July 9, 2015, the Tribunal advised the respondents that they are not required to file a response to this request.

4Section 44(1) of the Code states as follows:

At the request of a party to an application under this Part, the Tribunal may appoint a person to conduct an inquiry under this section if the Tribunal is satisfied that,

(a) an inquiry is required in order to obtain evidence;

(b) the evidence obtained may assist in achieving a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the application; and

(c) it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances.

Rule 20.2 provides in part as follows:

A Request for a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry under Rule 20.1 must:

a) Describe the evidence or nature of the evidence to be obtained;

b) Explain why the evidence is necessary to achieve a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the Application;

c) Describe the efforts already made to obtain the evidence; and,

d) Propose terms of reference for the inquiry

5In the request, the applicant states that a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry is required to obtain evidence regarding the respondents’ actions related to the incident of March 6, 2013 to establish that he was the victim of a conspiracy. The applicant submitted that this evidence is necessary to establish that the respondents discriminated against him, to identify those involved in the March 6, 2013 incident, assess abuse of power and collective agreement violations by the respondent school board, assess the culture of fear created at school by the respondent school board regarding the March 6, 2013 incident, determine that the individual respondents and others were “backed up” by the respondent school board, identify concerns and formulate a plan of remedy and promote organizational change. The applicant also submitted that only a thorough independent investigation can show that the incident of March 6, 2013 was a conspiracy against him.

6The applicant submitted that a Tribunal-Ordered inquiry should obtain video statements made by Ms. Rios and communications between the individual respondents and several other individuals. The applicant submitted that a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry is required to investigate several actions taken by the school board’s personnel following the incident of March 6, 2013, in particular with respect to the investigation into the incident. The applicant also submitted that a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry is required to investigate the involvement of the police and the actions taken by the applicant’s union and the lawyers assigned to assist him, as well as the involvement of other teachers’ in the alleged conspiracy against him.

Analysis and Decision

7A Tribunal ordered inquiry will not be a routine event and will not be a substitute for the usual production process contemplated by the Rules. See White v. University of Ottawa, 2009 HRTO 1057. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure set out a process that requires the parties to produce all arguably relevant documents in their possession. If the parties cannot agree or if one party has reason to believe that there are documents in the possession of a party or other person that have not been produced, the Tribunal has the authority to order the production of materials. The disclosure process commences after an Application has been set down for hearing, which has not occurred yet in this matter, and the applicant provided no reason why the documents and information he seeks are needed at this early stage of the proceeding.

8In any event, much of the information the applicant seeks to obtain also goes well beyond the scope of this Application, which has been narrowed considerably since most of the original Application has been dismissed, as noted above. The applicant’s submissions indicate that he desires an independent investigation into the subject matter of this Application to determine whether the respondents violated his Code rights. That is not the purpose of a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry. Rather, the purpose of a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry is to obtain evidence. Whether the applicant’s human rights have been violated shall be determined following a hearing of the merits of his Application.

9For these reasons, a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry is not appropriate and the applicant’s request is denied.

10I am not seized.