Ombudsman Invesrigation

Annual Report 1998/99
Addressing Historic Disadvantages
In the early nineties the broad public sector began to pay increasing attention to those whose voices had not been heard before, to those who did not see themselves reflected in the public sector workforce and who could not see their diverse needs taken into account in the development or delivery of government programs. Responses were initiated to address the lack of meaningful participation and representation by groups who were seen as vitally important in regenerating core values of public service. Government policies were directed toward a proactive approach to ensure equitable delivery of services and programs to everyone entitled, and to remove barriers to careers in the public service for those whose voices and presence had been largely ignored or neglected.

A Feeling Of Betrayal
Many of the groundbreaking initiatives directed toward equitable service taken by government in the early 1990's were found not to meet the test of core responsibilities. Instead they were regarded as frills or add-ons, and many were summarily terminated.
For the last several years my office has witnessed the impact of these changes on the everyday lives of Ontarians. They have been told that hard decisions must be taken to preserve today's standard of living for our children's tomorrow. But from the voices I hear, there is neither satisfaction with today's standards, nor a belief in the promise of tomorrow, either for themselves or their children. Instead, they see all manner of critical services dramatically cut back, from social assistance rates to eligibility requirements for disability benefits. They see an unwillingness on the part of government officials to make real change to serve people with disabilities appropriately. They see closed offices and overburdened public servants too busy to take the time to treat them with dignity and respect. They see an inaccessible and downsized public service, no longer a sector striving to remove systemic barriers.
Click here for the full report. (before that, please see what the actual Ombudsman said)



	Ombudsman Ontario: Working to ensure fair and accountable provincial government service “It is my intention to ensure that my office demonstrates the values of Fairness, Accountability, Integrity and Respect not just in its words but in its actions.” Clare Lewis, Q.C. Ombudsman of Ontario
	Ombudsman Ontario Annual Report 2002–2003

If you saw the messages displayed from above pictures – by moving mouse's pointer on, you could notice that while the former Ombudsman criticized the Harris government service, the actual Ombudsman has worked to ensure that his office demonstrated the values of Fairness, Accountability, Integrity and Respect not just in its words but in its actions toward such a government service! Was this kind of service a fair and accountable public service? Certainly not because the citizens of Ontario said NO on election day to such a service, and they have chosen change.

I expected that the actual Ombudsman would maintain the same commitment under the new elected Liberal government – "working to ensure fair and accountable provincial government service". The difference is that while the Harris-Eves government gave precedence to the "common law – originated from colonialism" over all other written laws – including the Human Rights Code and the Canadian Constitution, the actual Liberal government "believes strongly in a fair, tolerant society where everyone is treated with dignity and respect". In spite of that, some persons from the Ombudsman office are still trying to provide to me the same far-right discriminatory government service, and they are still refusing to investigate the Commission's flawed decision. This is certainly an obvious obstruction of justice!

Ombudsman Ontario Annual Report 1998–1999 (under Harris government):

"As the province's Ombudsman, it is my job to be aware of any deficiencies in the administration of public service. From my point of view, it would not be an over-statement to say that public service administration in Ontario is in a state of crisis."

Roberta Jamieson,
Former Ombudsman of Ontario

Ombudsman Ontario Annual Report 2002–2003 (under the same government):

Ombudsman Ontario:
Working to ensure fair and accountable provincial government service

“It is my intention to ensure that my office demonstrates the values of Fairness, Accountability, Integrity and Respect not just in its words but in its actions.”

Clare Lewis,
Ombudsman of Ontario

5. (1) - Discrimination in employment - "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, age, record of offences, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status or handicap".

The above section refers to "every person" – who can be "legal immigrant" or "Canadian citizen". There is no section or statement in the entire Human Right Code that mentions the Role of the Ombudsman about "Balancing the Obligations of Citizenship with the Recognition of Individual Rights and Responsibilities! So, where did he bring it from? Of course, from the "common law" originated from colonialism, and it was used as foundation for the far-right-extremist policy – known as "Common Sense Revolution" – under the Harris government. As the actual Ombudsman was appointed by that government, there is no surprise that he wanted to continue the policy of the common sense – for the rich – revolution!

Equality Rights

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

This section refers to all kind of people like "every individual" with no distinction between a legal immigrant or citizen, rich or poor, homeowner or homeless, etc., and all of them are equal under the law and have the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination. The only difference between an immigrant and a citizen that is stipulated in Constitution is that an immigrant has no right to vote in elections. But there is no section or article in the Canadian Constitution that refers to the "Role of the Ombudsman" for "Balancing the Obligations of Citizenship with the Recognition of Individual Rights and Responsibilities". Of course, it is not in the Canadian written laws either – not even in the Ombudsman Act – but in the "common law" that comes from colonialism! There is no doubt that such an interpretation of individual or human rights violates the Canadian Constitution!

What I do know is that:

they (government officials) forced my family to live in poverty by cutting our social assistance
by 22% ($300.00 every single month);
deducted National Child Supplement from our family welfare cheque, $50.00 received from
federal government and transferred to provincial government pocket;
cut the funds for many social programs including training and job search - for example, I went
to a job interview at Ottawa and they refused to refund the money that I spent on
transportation ($49.00);
denied proper training for keeping updated with new technologies and get Canadian
certification in order to be able to find a job;
were trying to force me to perform forced or compulsory labour in spite of the fact that article
8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states very clearly that "no one
shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour", of course with a few
exceptions like criminals in prisons;

So, regarding the "administrative practice" used for resolving my case of discrimination in
employment, they cancelled my social assistance, too, and I am now an unemployed victim
among those 600.000 welfare recipients reported by the government that found jobs through
workfare! ... For a full display, please click on the link of letter of October 15, 2002, thank you.

By way of background, Mr. Moraru was enrolled as a student at Seneca College in the Special Program entitled "Training for Immigrant Professionals". On May 31, 1995 he signed a Placement Agreement with the Ministry of Environment and Energy to work as a Systems Support Officer from May 29, 1995 to June 30, 1995. At the completion of this placement, he received a successful assessment notice from his supervisor. He claims that he then signed an agreement for a permanent position effective from July 10, 1995. This was to include an 8-week period probation period. However, he was released from his job on September 1, 1995 on the grounds that his employment has been temporary. The Ministry provided Mr. Moraru with a copy of a temporary contract as proof. However, he denies him this was the agreement that he had signed. As confirmation, Mr. Moraru points out that the space for his signature is blank on the temporary agreement. ....
... Please click on link for a full display.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am a Canadian citizen, having immigrated to Canada ten years ago with my wife and daughter. After living under Ceausescu's Communist Party dictatorship, we came here with great hopes of a better life and future for our daughter, but we have been very disappointed.

When Harris government came to power in 1995, I was a professional landed immigrant on welfare engaged in a volunteer placement designed to lead to full employment at the Min. of Environment. Although I received a successful assessment and I signed an agreement for one of four Systems Support Officer positions, the Ministry hired someone else and directed me to an immigration agency to find a job. I was by then 50, and that placement had been intended to help me get off welfare. Two months later, the Harris government abolished the "Employment Equity Act" and repealed the "Employment Equity Commission". Ironically, the same government later pretended that it had created the workfare (similar to my placement) to help people on welfare get jobs! ....

.... Please click on link for a full display.

If you would like to see how the far-right "common sense" revolutionists are defending the human rights, please see the Conference of the International Ombudsman Institute ( IOI ) that was held in Quebec from September 7 to 10, 2004. This event had gathered members of the Institute and anyone involved in one way or the other with ombudsmanship and the defense of human rights in any part of the world. The general theme was "Balancing the Obligations of Citizenship with the Recognition of Individual Rights and Responsibilities – The Role of the Ombudsman”. Do not be surprised that the President of the IOI was at that time the Ontario Ombudsman.

Now, you would understand better why the Ontario Ombudsman does not want to investigate the Human Rights Commission's flawed decision. Maybe he is still thinking that I – as an immigrant while I was discriminated against and then as a new Canadian citizen – do have more Obligations and Responsibilities than Individual Human Rights! Besides, do not forget that the actual Ombudsman was appointed by a far-right extremist government, and I together with my family are victims of that government's discriminatory policy. So, under such circumstances, how do you expect that he would make a decision against the government which appointed him?

But if you take a look at the Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Canadian Constitution – you will understand that such an interpretation of the human rights by some persons – whoever they are – violates the Canadian laws, especially the Canadian Constitution which is the supreme law of the country. For more info, please move the mouse's pointer on the above blue words – Human Rights & Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thank you.

Before I would edit entirely this page, I would like to mention that I initially complained by a letter to the Ontario Human Rights Commission ( OHRC ), but my letter was ignored and I was not even informed to write my complaint on an complaint form. I complained then to the Ontario Ombudsman. After an initial letter of investigation addressed to the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Environment, the Deputy Minister of that time under the Harris government was not willing to cooperate for. For this reason, the Ombudsman investigator was trying to put me down right of the beginning of the investigation. However, I had replied promptly and I insisted during the investigation that my human rights have been violated. In spite of that, the investigator ignored my complaints that I have been unfairly treated and discriminated against.

In the decision of January 7, 1998, the former Ombudsman's statements regarding my complaints about the infringement of my human rights sounded like this: "A review of your file shows that when you originally came to my office, you had advised my staff that an OHRC staff member informed you that you did not have grounds for a complaint. In a letter dated March 25, 1997, a member of my staff, Mr. ... , advised you that you could write to the Commission again to expand on your reasons for wanting to register a complaint. Mr. ... further advised you that Ombudsman Ontario is an office of last resort and can only review matters once all available avenues of redress have been exhausted. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is the proper authority to investigate complaints about discrimination and it is the most appropriate body to deal with your concerns. It was for this reason that your complaints about discrimination were not included in our investigation into the actions of the Ministry of Environment and Energy", second paragraph.

The former Ombudsman mentioned further: "Please be advised that I do not agree that my investigation has obstructed your ability to proceed with your Human Rights complaint", third paragraph, last sentence. Also, the former Ombudsman mentioned that "If you have a new complaint about an organization that falls within our jurisdiction, we will review it", last paragraph, last sentence.

The big problem was that the Commission mishandled my case and made a flawed decision that covered up the Harris government's discriminatory policy implemented at its government offices. Having a right of reconsideration within 15 days and realising that nobody could stop the Commission from upholding its unfair decision, I complained in time directly to the Ombudsman. So, in spite of the fact that I had a right for reconsideration and I complained about the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision since August 1999, again in December 2001, in May 2002, on October 15, 2002, on April 23rd, 2003 and again on March 28, 2004, the Ombudsman office is still refusing to make a an investigation of that decision. Rather, this office is trying to obstruct my opportunity to have access to fair justice.

The new appointed Ombudsman – by the Harris government – has considered since December 20, 2000 that it "appeared" to be "other law or administrative practice" for resolving my case and put my file on backlog. If it "appeared" to be so, then why the Conservative government did not pay attention to my complaints and tried to force me to work 70 hours per month for my $260-welfare-cheque (like a criminal in prison – $3.71/hour) and cancelled my assistance because I refused to do so? Article 8(3)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states very clearly: "No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour", with a few exceptions – like criminals in prison. For more details, please see my letter of October 15, 2002 addressed to the Ombudsman.

During a hunger strike protest held in May 2003 for twelve days, a member staff of the Ombudsman office came out from the office and told me that "the Ombudsman had read my letter of protest and the office will take action". I knew that the Ombudsman has read my letter of protest because I gave him a copy of it when he passed by, and – being hungry, exhausted and almost frozen – I had not too many choices but to believe that person. But I realized shortly that I was misled, and because no action was taken afterwards, I restarted my protest against discrimination and obstruction of justice right in front of the Ombudsman office. After six months of protest and having a petition with 700 signatures in support for my case, I complained for the third time to the Ombudsman's reception office that no action had been taken. Finally, I received in November 2003 the Ombudsman's answer stating that he "has not changed his view about my case and my file remains closed". Besides, he did not pay attention to so many signatures from the petition registered at his office. Very nice decision after that person from his staff told me that "the office will take action"! Unfortunately, I do not buy this kind of service – it is not a fair and accountable public service – and I decided to continue my protest.

In the Ombudsman's letter of November 2003, below the Ombudsman logo, it is written: "working to insure fair and accountable provincial government service". In fact, this statement was chosen as title for the Ombudsman's annual report of June 2003 addressed to the Legislature. Below the Ombudsman's picture, on the first page of the report it is written:

"Ombudsman Ontario: Working to ensure fair and accountable provincial government service". Below this title, the Ombudsman emphasized his commitment toward such a service: "It is my intention to ensure that my office demonstrates the values of Fairness, Accountability, Integrity and Respect not just in its words but in its actions" in spite of the fact that the previous Ombudsman criticized the Harris government service. ( If you did not see it yet, please move the mouse's pointer over this paragraph ). If you don't know what kind of service had provided the Harris-Eves government for immigrants, people with disabilities and the poor – service for which the Ombudsman office has demonstrated the values of Accountability, Integrity and Respect not just in its words but in its actions, I suggest you to take a look at the former Ombudsman's Annual Report 1998/99 and My Canadian experience under Harris government.

The big problem is that, in spite of the fact that the former Ombudsman has acknowledged in writing that she did "not agree that her investigation has obstructed my ability to proceed with my Human Rights complaint", the actual Ombudsman has done exactly that during the last four years – an obvious obstruction of justice. The Harris government knew very well what kind of persons to appoint at its government agencies on very important positions! Of course, not persons who were thinking like the former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who gave us the Canadian Constitution – Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but only persons from the same "Common Sense Revolution" class who worked hard to ensure fair and accountable far-right government service! Far-right thinking people who give precedence to the "common law" over all other written laws, including the "Ontario Human Rights Code" and the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"!

One of these "common laws – unwritten laws that originate from colonialism" tells them to consider the immigrants, people with disability and the poor like a second class of people who must have certain community or civic obligations before their human rights should be taken into consideration! No wonder that such people receiving social assistance were forced to work 70 hours per month – like criminals in prison – for their cheques already reduced with 22%. Did the actual Ombudsman say something about such an unequal and unfair treatment? Certainly, not. His office was just working to ensure that such a provincial government service was a fair and accountable one, although the former Ombudsman criticized it! For more details, please move the mouse's pointer over this paragraph ( active scripting must be enabled ).

Fortunately, since the people of Ontario "have chosen change" on election day by rejecting a government service which was "not fair and accountable" to them as it was not fair to me, too, the actual Ombudsman has to maintain the same commitment under the new Liberal government – "working to ensure fair and accountable provincial government service". The difference is that I already received some feedback that the Liberal government "believes strongly in a fair, tolerant society where everyone is treated with dignity and respect". Consequently, the Ombudsman office has to change its service, too. Besides, the role of the Ombudsman is to receive and investigate citizen’s grievances against the government institutions. Moreover, his mission is to serve people equitably, justly and fairly and, most importantly, to treat them with dignity and respect – regardless of their ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, age, etc. in accordance with the Human Rights Code and the Canadian Constitution – not to comply with and to express his commitment toward a far-right government service which was not fitted to the people's needs. Not to lie to or to misled people like me when they protest in front of his office. This is called "fair and accountable public service".

That’s why I am standing up for my rights, and I am asking again the Ombudsman to investigate the Commission's flawed decision. Moreover, I am asking the Ombudsman to have some respect for the fundamental human rights – like freedom of speech & freedom to protest – and to pay attention to so many Canadian citizens and immigrants of all colours, ages and nationalities ( 1,040 so far ) who have understood that I was discriminated against and signed a petition for supporting my case. In a few words, it is just respect for human dignity and human rights!

P.S. The "Mission Statement" of the Ombudsman's annual report for this year ( 2003 - 2004 under the Liberal government ) is similar with the report title from last year under the Harris/Eves government: "Working to ensure fair and accountable provincial government service". However, the new report has stressed out the "Values" that guided the Ombudsman in his interactions with his staff, the public and the government, as following:

Fairness: treating everyone in a reasonable, equitable, and impartial manner
Accountability: providing quality services, taking responsibility, evaluating and improving through innovation
Integrity: demonstrating transparent, honest and ethical practices
Respect: understanding individual differences and valuing diversity

I have to recognize that if these values would have been applied under the Harris/Eves government, I would not have had any reasons to hold a hunger strike and to protest in front of the Ombudsman office. It appears, however, that these values sound very nice on paper but not in practice since I am still protesting in front of the office and the Ontario Ombudsman and the government officials as well do not care about!

Contents:

Some Background Information
Investigation Process
Ombudsman's first Decision
Ombudsman's last Decision
Documents on File
- Seneca College's Eligibility Requirements for
  Training for Immigrant Professionals (TIPs)
- Employment Placement, TIPs Explanation Kit
- Placement Agreement
- Employment Monitoring Form
- Employment Status Form
- Riverdale Women Immigrant Centre Notice
- Supervisor's Recommendation Letter
- Deputy Minister's Letter
- My Letters addressed to Deputy Minister
- Investigator's Initial Letter of Investigation
- Assistant Deputy Minister's Letter
- Top Page


	Under Construction ! Please move the mouse's pointer over pictures!
Ms. Roberta Jamieson, the former Ombudsman	Ombudsman's Investigation	Mr. Clare Lewis, the actual Ombudsman