Ontario Human Rights Commission's Investigation

Contents:

• Some Background Information
• Investigation Process
• Commission's decision

Some Background Information

I initially complained in October 1995 by a letter to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, East Region, but I was not even told to write my complaint on official form. Practically, my letter was ignored. Then, I complained on October 31, 1995 to the Ontario Ombudsman office, but a formal, superficial, and unfair investigation has been conducted. In spite of the fact that I asked many times that a few Human Rights issues should have been taken into consideration, the Ombudsman office avoided such issues under the pretext that I didn’t pursue my complaint with the Human Rights Commission. This remark determined me to complain again to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (December, 1996), but for that time my complaint was just moved to other offices and kept on hold without any reasonable explanations.

After two years, in January 1998, I sent an open letter of protest addressed to important Canadian personalities, but some important officials like, for example, Premier Mike Harris ignored my letter and I did not receive at least a formal answer. I received, however, some feedback from other personalities that my complaint would have a fair investigation, but it had been taken almost one year for the Commission to reach a decision only for section 34 of the Code (exhibit Commission's Decision on Section 34). Afterwards, my file had been kept on hold again, although it had been assigned for investigation.

After a second letter of protest transmitted at the end of February 1999 followed by a hunger strike, the Human Rights Commission decided to begin an investigation in March 1999. Top Page

Investigation Process

As result of my letter of protest and hunger strike held on February 1999, I had a telephone conversation on March 5, 1999 with a person from the Human Rights Commission. Although, I expressed right at the beginning my concerns about the process of the investigation, based on my experience with this office until then, that person insisted to speak with her. She asked me some questions about my complaint, and I gave her some answers without my knowledge that she was going to make an investigation at that time. However, I pointed out what a co-worker told me quite frankly, and I repeated to her, that "it is not your fault that you came here, but you have to leave". At that moment he gave me a piece of paper on which it was written the name of an immigration agency, "Riverdale Women Immigration Centre", telling me "to go there if I needed a job". I also pointed out that I was on social assistance at that time, and my work placement was designed to help me move from social assistance to work. However, during that telephone conversation, my case was not entirely covered, and I just answered what that person asked me for.

Afterwards, I received a letter dated March 8, 1999 in which I was informed that "As per our telephone conversation of March 5, 1999, I wish to advise you that the above-cited case has been assigned to me for handling". The investigator also mentioned that "in addition to our telephone conversation of March 5, 1999 and those that will follow, I would ask you to gather all documents you have in your possession regarding your employment and the terms of that employment with the Ministry of Environment. If you would bring these with you to our first scheduled meeting, we could review them to ensure the Commission has copies of all relevant documents". In addition, the investigator asked me to "identify any witnesses that may be able to speak to the allegations raised, .., officers that may have relevant information, etc." (exhibit Letter of March 8/99).

In the meantime, I made a new attempt to get a copy of an "AGREEMENT" that I signed at the Ministry, and I applied for Legal Aid in order to get some legal advice. So far so good until I received a message from the investigator in order to contact her to sign my "Witness Statement" which was taken by telephone on March 5, 1999. I contacted her by telephone, and I also left a message asking her respectfully to allow me some time in order to be well prepared for that meeting. In spite of that, I received a letter dated April 26, 1999 asking me again to go to her office to sign my "Witness Statement". I replied by a letter dated April 29, 1999 asking her respectfully again to allow me some time in order to "gather all documents and to identify a few witnesses", as in fact she asked me for. I had also experienced some family problems, and I informed her that I could not meet with her on our first schedule meeting on May 3rd, 1999 (exhibit My Letter of April 29/99). In addition, as I mentioned above, I was expecting to receive new documents from the Ministry, and I was also waiting to receive Legal Aid (exhibit Legal Aid Hearing Appeal on May 10/95).

On May 10, 1999, when I had a hearing regarding my appeal for Legal Aid, the investigator sent me a letter stating that "As you know, we have been unable to resolve this complaint through our normal procedures of investigation and conciliation" (exhibit Letter of May 10 / 99). In addition, the investigator mentioned that "For this reason, the complaint will be referred to the Commission for a decision as to whether or not it will refer the subject matter to the Board of Inquiry pursuant to Section 36 of the Human Rights Code". Moreover, it was made a Case Analysis report dated May 1, 1999, and I had been informed to send my submission, by May 31, 1999 to an Assistant Manager from Windsor, a region of Ontario situated at hundreds of km. away from Toronto. The big question is why in Windsor and not in Toronto.

I addressed a letter, within limited time, directly to the Chief Commissioner asking to return the complaint back for a correct and fair investigation, but my letter has been ignored and the Commission made a decision in favour of respondent (exhibit Commission's Decision).

Under these circumstances, the investigation was not conducted "through normal procedures of investigation and conciliation" and not in accordance with the Commission's enforcement procedures and Code of Ethics because:

• The investigator decided to close the investigation without any justified reasons and did not allow me to add new statements and evidence to my file before making the Case Analysis report;

• The investigator ignored my difficulties existing in my family and did not allow me to be well prepared for our first official meeting. During that period I applied for Legal Aid to get some legal advice in order to defend my rights. In this regard, I had a hearing at the Legal Aid Office on May 10, 1999, and I appealed the denied decision to the Vice President of Legal Aid Appeals. However, the Vice President made a decision for denying Legal Aid on May 31, 1999 (exhibit Vice President's Decision on Legal Aid Appeal). Please notice that on May 10, 1999, the date when the investigator decided to close the investigation, I had a Legal Aid Hearing. Please also notice that on May 31, 1999, the date of appeal decision for denying Legal Aid, it was the deadline for my reply to the Case Analysis report;

• The Case Analysis report was dated May 1, 1999 and it was made in advance of a scheduled meeting on May 3, 1999 when it was supposed to verify the documents from my file and to add more information and evidence. I received very useful evidence, but it was much too late to submit them to the Commission. Also, my witness statement taken by telephone at the beginning of investigation was not complete, and I wanted to add more information on it. In addition, my witness statement ought to have my signature before making the Case Analysis report. Consequently, the Case Analysis report, which was before the Commission for making a decision, has not been valid;

• In reality, the investigator used her discretion to close the investigation because she wanted to protect the respondent, a high ranking government official, and did not want to allow me to be well prepared at our meeting and to add additional evidence to my file. This was very clear pointed out in her letter of April 26, 1999 regarding the respondent's name. In spite of the fact that I explicitly complained against a high ranking official and other name and I never changed my mind, it was written a completely different name as respondent in that letter. In addition, the investigator mentioned that "In my voice message of today, I indicated you had advised me this office had all the documentation and I offered to review the documentation with you to ensure the office does have it". I am very sorry, but I never said that "the office had all documentation" because there is a document which I signed and that document was not contained in the documentation. For that reason, I made a new attempt to get a copy of it because the Ministry was trying to hide it. What was true is that the documentation from my complaint was never verified. Moreover, regarding witnesses, she specified that "you spoke of witnesses, again which I asked you to provide in our telephone interview of March 5, 1999 and which you indicated only ... (she specified two names)". I am very sorry again, but her statement is not correct. Those two names came out during our telephone discussion as result of her questions, and this does not mean that I could not indicate other names as witnesses as well if I wanted to. So, it is very clear that the investigator tried to influence my opinion with respect to the respondent's name and wanted to protect a high-ranking government official implicated in my human rights discrimination. This was in fact the reason for which the investigator decided to close the investigation and directed me to reply to her trusted Assistant Manager from Windsor who covered up her investigation. This kind of conduct is a violation of the Commission's enforcement procedures and Code of Ethics;

• After the investigator decided to close the investigation, it was mentioned, however, that "As you know, we have been unable to resolve this complaint through our normal procedures of investigation and conciliation". Anyway, it was not my fault. The Human Rights Code does not allow "special", "preferential" or "other sorts" of procedures of investigation and conciliation. An investigation must be resolved through normal procedures and in accordance with the Commission's enforcement procedures and Code of Ethics. Otherwise, it means "unequal and discriminatory treatment" and, therefore, not "all persons are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".

Therefore, the investigator as well as the Commission violated article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Moreover, by cutting Legal Aid for any kind of employment cases, including human rights discrimination, the Harris government intentionally created an obstacle for people with financial difficulties in order to obstruct their access to the Justice System. Consequently, this is again a violation of article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because not "All persons are equal before the law and entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law". In this respect, according to article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status". Top Page

Commission's decision

With regard to the Commission's decision, the Commission stated that there was "insufficient evidence to indicate that the complainant was subject to unequal treatment or harassed in employment because of race, color or place of origin". I have to point out that as long as the investigation has not been conducted "through normal procedures of investigation and conciliation", and "not in accordance with the Commission's enforcement procedures and Code of Ethics", as I proved on section about Investigation Process, the Commission's decision is abusive, unfair, incorrect, and invalid. In other words, the Commission abused its power and used the following pattern in order to throw my complaint in the garbage: let me use my discretion and make a decision based on an investigation which was not conducted "through normal procedure of investigation and conciliation" and "not in accordance the Commission's enforcement procedures and Code of Ethics", and I will give you an opportunity to make a request for reconsideration in order to prove that it was an issue regarding the integrity of the Commission's administrative process. My question is: who was going to stop the Commission from not making a similar abusive, unfair, and incorrect decision? Of course, nobody.

There is no doubt that, in the same way as my letter addressed to the Chief Commissioner was ignored by the Commission, my request for reconsideration would have been ignored, too. After a second decision, the Commission's decision would have become final, and even the Ombudsman could not ask the Commission to reconsider its decision.

Under the above circumstances, I realized that I could not trust the Commission anymore and, because during that time my file was opened at the Ombudsman office as well, I complained to the Ombudsman who is hierarchically superior and has the power to investigate decisions made by the Human Rights Commission (exhibit Letter of August 5/99). However, in spite of the fact that I complained to the Ombudsman and held a hunger strike, the Ombudsman decided to not investigate the Commission's decision and closed my file (exhibit Ombudsman's Decision). This is an obstruction of justice and therefore, a violation of articles 7 & 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and articles 2.3(a & b), and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

For more detailed information, please see "Human Rights Discrimination".

Top Page