School staff member’s alleged comments to student and his father were Code-based discrimination.
Race, Colour, Creed and Ethnicity/ Service, Facilities and Goods
In A.A. v. Vilma Canizalez, 2023 HRTO 1353, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) ruled on an incident of race, colour, creed and ethnicity-based discrimination over comments made at a school by a staff member towards a parent and a student.
The applicant, Ab. A. identifies as a Muslim man with brown skin and is a recent immigrant to Canada from Pakistan. Ab. A served as a litigation guardian for is son, A.A., the second applicant. On May 29, 2019, Ab.A. accompanied A.A. to school.
Incident started with school staff member’s comments about child’s sweatshirt:
While Ab.A. spoke with A.A.’s teacher, the respondent told A.A. to take off his sweatshirt as he was frightening other children. Ab.A. spoke to the respondent about her concern with A.A.’s hoodie. He then walked towards the school and told the respondent he would speak with the school administration. Ab.A. alleged the respondent stated as he was entering the school: “We have rules here. If you don’t like them, go back to your country.” After Ab.A. entered the school, the respondent called the police to report that Ab.A. had threatened her.
Results of the school’s investigation not reported to the father or son:
Ab.A. reported the incident with the school staff member to the principal. The principal advised there was no new or specific rule that prohibited the wearing of hoodies at school that would warrant the respondent confronting A.A. about his hoodie. Ab.A. then went to his workplace, where the police contacted him in response to the respondent’s complaint.
The school conducted an investigation into the incident. The conclusions of this report matched up with Ab.A’s allegation regarding the comment the respondent made to him. Ab.A. did not learn of the results of this investigation until two-and-a-half years after it was provided as part of a settlement with the school board.
Respondent denies allegations, called police on father:
The respondent denied the allegations, stating that she herself is a racialized immigrant to Canada. She claimed the issue with A.A.’s hoodie was that it was zipped up to cover his face and had a white skeleton on it. The respondent claimed A.A. was scaring the other children. The applicants disputed this and led evidence that the hoodie was plain black and was not covering A.A.’s head. Additionally, A.A. had speech-related disabilities that prevented him from engaging with other children.
The respondent testified that Ab.A. aggressively confronted her after she approached A.A. about his hoodie and that she had the right to call the police against Ab.A. as she had felt threatened by him. She denied making the discriminatory statement attributed to her and could not explain why the investigation report confirmed that she had.
A.A. no longer felt safe at the school where the respondent worked and transferred schools shortly after the incident. Ab.A. testified that as a relatively new immigrant who had not yet achieved citizenship he found being contacted by the police to be exceptionally distressing.
HRTO hears case and testimony of applicants and respondent:
The HRLSC successfully represented the applicants in a hearing before the HRTO. In A.A. v. Vilma Canizalez, 2023 HRTO 1353, the HRTO found the applicants’ version of events to be more credible than that provided by the respondent, particularly as it was supported by the police report and principal’s investigation report. There was sufficient evidence to support an inference that the father, Ab.A, and the son, A.A.’s and race, colour, creed and ethnic origin were factors in the respondent’s treatment of them.
The Tribunal’s decision:
The Tribunal’s decision awarded the applicants general damages in the amount of $5,000 for Ab.A. and $1,000 for A.A. The HRTO ordered the respondent to complete the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s “Human Rights 101” online eLearning course.
The Respondent has requested a reconsideration of the decision.