S.1 Being a lawyer, Jennifer Feren should be well-versed in the law and know what is and is not legal. Knowing this, she still sat back and watched with no remorse the obvious sexist, bigotry and oppression behavior of the DSBN’s and Warren Hoshizaki for years.
S.2 Every day, Jennifer Feren would sit and eat her lunch while starring at her computer. Always ready to ignore and fail to consider the negative consequences of the daily wrongdoings carried out by the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki against some of the same racialized individuals and communities that their schools are located in.
S.3 It is clear that the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki are sexist, discriminatory and racist. And what did Jennifer Feren do? Nothing! Jennifer Feren showed absolutely no interest in defending the legal rights of racialized individuals who were denied employment opportunities due to their appearance.
S.4 Why? Because Jennifer Feren is a DSBN lawyer.
S.5 It’s clear that Jennifer Feren cared more about keeping her job and paychecks coming in, than she was about the rights of racialized individuals who were just trying to support their families when applying to DSBN postings about employment openings.
S.6 She receives paid compensation for nothing more than to have lunch every day, spend her time in front of a computer and pretend she has no idea what is going on.
S.7 Since joining the racist community and culture in 2017, Jennifer Feren has made it abundantly evident that she supports the racist, sexist and discriminatory actions of the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki, as she sits around and adopts their unacceptable habits and beliefs about racialized individuals.
S.8 Think about how she handled the request from the applicant’s parents, who were entitled to know the identity of the DSBN unknown public servant who had two uncalled-for and unpleasant encounters with their child in the course of two days.
S.9 Since the applicants made their CLAIM very clear that they were going to ENFORCE their rights under the Code to file a complaint with the HRTO. Jennifer Feren, the DSN and Warren Hoshizaki rejected their request in retaliation.
S.10 In her email, Jennifer Feren acknowledges that the parents have exercised their right to file a complaint, thus why she wants to hide the identity of the unknown public servant from the applicants parents.
From: Jennifer Feren jennifer.feren@dsbn.org
Dated: October 18, 2022
My understanding is that your “filing” references a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. We respect YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO. As a result, we will allow the Tribunal’s process to determine this issue.
S.11 What Jennifer Feren was attempting to do was to conceal the unknown public servants identity (S. Masterson) and shield and protect him from being questioned or held accountable for the events and interactions he was involved in regards to the applicant.
S.12 Neither Jennifer Feren, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki have the right or the authority to withhold from any parent(s) the name of any public servant who has any kind of access, especially any unpleasant interaction with their child(ren).
S.13 Especially after you have acknowledge that the parents have exercised their right to file a complaint with the HRTO, and you are now ONLY concealing the identification of the unknown public servant as retaliation.
S.14 The Ontario Human Rights Commissions states: Every person has a right to CLAIM and ENFORCE his or her rights under the Code, or START or TAKE PART in proceedings under the Code without reprisal or threat of reprisal.
S.15 The following example would be viewed as reprisal contrary to the Code: An employee believes that he was not promoted in his job because of his race. He tells his manager that he will contact a lawyer to see about filing a human rights claim. The next day he is fired.
Read More – Ontario Human Rights Commission – What Is Discrimination
S.16 The HRTO states: Reprisal (a legal term that means punishment or retaliation) or threats of reprisal, because a person has either claimed their rights, refused to discriminate against someone else or WAS A participant in a human rights proceeding.
S.17 And because Jennifer Feren, an officer of the courts, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki admit that the applicants did CLAIM and ENFORCE their rights under the Code. They acted out in a reprisal and:
- Refused to give them the name of the unknown public servant who had two negative interactions over two days with their son.
- Attempted to protect and hide the unknown public servant from being held accountable for his questionable behavior.
- Denied the parents their rights to getting any clarification of what transpired.
S.18 And despite all this reprisal behavior, the unknown public servants name (S. Masterson) was right there listed as an employee on Connaught Public School’s profile page hosted by the DSBN.
S.19 There is no argument that the applicant’s parents did state their right to CLAIM and ENFORCE under the Code. That Jennifer Feren clearly show that if they had not, that then they would have than been to entitled to know this unknown public servants name.
S.20 “My understanding is that your “filing” references a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. We respect YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO. As a result, we will allow the Tribunal’s process to determine this issue.”
S.21 “As a result” of what? As a result of filing a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
S.22 Let us note that at this time Jennifer Feren could not have actually known if the applicants had actual filed ”a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.” or not. Which if they did, would have STARTed a proceedings under the Code.
S.23 This is later confirmed in an email sent by Jennifer Feren, after the applicants did actually file, which proves she believed they did START a proceedings under the Code.
S.24 Proceedings: an event or a series of activities involving a set procedure.
S.25 Jennifer Feren states in her later email that “Under the HRTO Rules of Procedure and Practice Direction and as set out in the HRTO Applicants’ Guide, after the HRTO has received a completed application and has reviewed it for jurisdiction, they will deliver it to any respondents or affected persons listed in the Application.”
S.26 At this point Jennifer Ferencould not have known if the applicants had actually filed or not. But it is clear that Jennifer Feren believes that they did as she states: “your filing references a complaint TO THE Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.”
S.27 Jennifer Feren WOULD AND COULD ONLY make this statement if she believes that “a compliant” had already been made “to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal” by the applicants.
S.28 So Jennifer Feren was acting in reprisal, because she believes at that very moment that the applicants have filed a “complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.”
S.29 And she is now subsequently just waiting for the HRTO to “review it for jurisdiction, they will deliver it to any respondents or affected persons listed in the Application. “
From: Jennifer Feren jennifer.feren@dsbn.org
Dated: November 3, 2023
Under the HRTO Rules of Procedure and Practice Direction and as set out in the HRTO Applicants’ Guide, after the HRTO has received a completed application and has reviewed it for jurisdiction, they will deliver it to any respondents or affected persons listed in the Application. It is once the respondents receive the application from the HRTO that the respondents are required to file the Response (Form 2).
As a result, there is no need to copy anyone at the DSBN with your application at this time. The DSBN and its representatives will receive it in due course and will thereafter file its response with the HRTO.
S.30 In Jennifer Feren’s mind, she believed “a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal” had already STARTed, hence why she refused to provide the applicants parents with the name of the unknown public servant who had two negative interactions over two days as payback/reprisal for CLAIMING and ENFORCING their rights under the Code.
S.31 And it is obvious that Jennifer Feren believes the applicants have already STARTed a “compliant” as she was now willing to allow the Tribunal time to process and make determine on jurisdiction.
S.32 If Jennifer Feren’s really believed that the applicants had not STARTed the “Tribunal’s process.”. They why would she refuse to give the name of the unknown public servant to the applicant’s parents while claiming that she was waiting until the HRTO “review it for jurisdiction?”
S.33 Because again, Jennifer Feren believed that a “filing/complaint… was STARTed… and a proceedings” under the code was underway with Ontario Human Rights Tribunal as she waited for “Tribunal’s process” to review it for jurisdiction.
From: Jennifer Feren jennifer.feren@dsbn.org
Dated: November 22, 2023
Your email was forwarded to me for response.
I have previously advised that there was no need to copy anyone at the DSBN with your HRTO application. Despite this, you continue to copy several staff members on every communication you have with the HRTO. You also demand staff provide copies of your communication about the HRTO to individual staff members.
While I do not work for the HRTO, I do know the OHRT Rules of Procedure. Once a completed application is submitted to the OHRT and they file it, the OHRT will send it to all respondents.
We are directing you to cease sending any further communications about your intended OHRT application as we will not be responding to it until it has been delivered to the DSBN and staff directly from the OHRT. If you do not cease sending these communications to DSBN staff, we will take steps to curtail your ability to communicate with DSBN personnel.
To: Jennifer Feren jennifer.feren@dsbn.org
Dated: November 22, 2023
First and foremost, we have no idea who you believe you are trying to intimidate once more?
We appreciate that you have completed your lunch and have come out from behind your computer to discuss your “legal” issues. But where were your “legal” worries during the nearly two decades that Warren Hoshizaki and the DSBN were engaging in their discriminatory, sexist, and racist hiring and promotion practices?
You are just as crooked and racist as the company that pays you, thus you have no right to lecture anyone about anything!
(2) Although we are not “lawyers” like you. We are not aware of this OHRT that you have mentioned multiple times in your email. Could you please clarify what this OHRT means?
(3) And again “What is the first name of S. Masterson?”
• As this S. Masterson is a public employee who had unlimited and uncontrolled access to our son.
• The same S. Masterson who deliberately discriminated against our son by pursuing and hunting him for a period of two days.
• The same S. Masterson who allowed Caucasian students nearby to carry out the same activity that was trying to prevent our son from performing.
• The same S. Masterson who attempted to illegally threaten and intimidate our son into giving him his phone.
• The same S. Masterson who then illegally threatened to punish him for refusing to comply with his unlawful request.
Once more, you have the option to behave rational or retaliatory in your attempts to obstruct our application against you and your co-defendants as payback for upholding/enforcing our rights.
However, let us remind you that you have no legal authority to shield or conceal the identity of any public employee who has interacted with any student—especially a student who is racially marginalized—twice in an exceedingly unfavorable and dubious manner in the course of two days, while on DSBN property!
( 4) Regarding the attachment of co-defendants in a HRTO file.
As far as we can tell, you haven’t yet cited any specific legal passage that supports your allegations. However, once more, kindly file it with the HRTO or any other court system you believe you should. “We honor your freedom to do so.”
And once again, we are directing you to cease from sending any further communications to us about your opinions and thoughts on this matter. If you refuse to cease from sending us these harassing and attempts to intimidate our family communications, we will take steps to curtail your ability to communicate with us. ANY AND ALLOF YOUR CONCERNS AND ARGUMENTS legal or not. MUST BE DEALT Through the HRTO or whatever LEGAL MANNER you desire. Our family is not a sounding board for you to try and intimidate us into compliance with your concerns or thoughts on the matter.
Please limit your last response to us about S. Masterson’s first name, and the clarification of what OHRT means? Do not use the email to discuss or address any other issues. If you’re racist, sexist and bigotry boss Warren Hoshizaki believes he has some form of legal argument and would like you to fight that fight for him. You have legal options, and you have the right to enforce them. And once more, “We honor your freedom to do so.”
S.34 Now we will address this “We are directing you…”
S.35 Who is this “We” that Jennifer Feren references? The obvious guess would be that it is Jennifer Feren, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki .
S.36 So now we can address the HRTO Rules of Procedure.
S.37 The code states – 1.20 A party filing any document, other than an Application (Form 1) or a Response (Form 2) under ss. 34(1) or 34(5) of the Code, including by e-mail, must deliver a copy of the document to all other parties to the Application.
S.38 So the code clearly states that ANY “party filing any document… must deliver a copy of the document to all other parties to the application.”
S.39 And yet, Jennifer Feren, who is an officer of the courts. Along with the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki are deliberately acting in bad faith by intentionally giving the applicants inaccurate and misleading information concerning HRTO procedures in an effort to coerce and bully them into complying with their demands to cease sending their HRTO material to “DSBN personnel.”
S.40 Jennifer Feren, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki state “we are directing you to cease sending any further communications” with their co-defendants. And “If you do not cease sending these communications to DSBN staff, we will take steps to curtail your ability to communicate with DSBN personnel.”
S.41 What a thought-provoking comment.
S.42 As a result of the applicants following the mandated HRTO Rules of Procedure. They now were being threaten and intimidated by “WE” (Jennifer Feren, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki) that THEY will curtail their ability to communicate with DSBN personnel.
S.43 And if the applicants choose not to “curtail,” their legal mandated obligations as expressed in the code. How will the “WE.. curtail their ability to communicate with DSBN personnel.”
- Does the applicants face the possibility of some DSBN employee’s visiting their home and beating up the applicant’s parents?
- Perhaps the DSBN will illegally suspend/expel their son from school for 12 days without cause once more?
- Or alternatively, perhaps they will arrange for a Caucasian students or a student to physically assault and/or make insult and humiliate of the applicant while in class, then go on as if nothing ever happened!
S.44 No, these serious threats made by the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Jennifer Feren was an implied lawsuit!
S.45 And the purpose of “WE” filing a lawsuit ONLY for the sole reason of “curtail the applicants ability to communicate with DSBN personnel” because it was illegal?
S.46 NOPE… because that does not seem like a valid argument. As the code clearly states that “A party filing any document… must deliver a copy of the document to all other parties to the application.”
S.47 So what is the real reason behind these acts of intimidation and threats of legal action? REPRISAL!!!
- For CLAIMING and ENFORCING their rights under the Code.
- Or because “WE” believes that the applicants have STARTed a proceedings under the Code.
- For following the outlined HRTO Rules of Procedure in regards to filing documents.
S.48 Which are all legal under the code and within the mandate rights and obligations of the applicants.
S.49 And interesting enough the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Jennifer Feren, NEVER did follow through on their threats to “curtail” the applicants communications with DSBN personnel.
S.50 Why? Because the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Jennifer Feren were bluffing and got CALLED OUT FOR IT!
S.51 Jennifer Feren, a officer of the courts, had to have known the merits to her bluff when trying to intimidate the applicants to stay silent or face legal action. With that said, there appears to be more to this statement than the eye can see.
S.52 These intimidation antics and the threat was done in reprisal without a doubt. But also it was a bluff in an apparent effort by Jennifer Feren, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki to try and alienate their co-defendants from receiving what was being submitted to the HRTO in attempt to protect themselves.
S.53 You know keeping all your co-defendants in the dark until the very last minute. Hoping that by keeping them clueless and not knowing the whole spectrum of the compliant. It might prevent any of the co-defendants or other DSBN employees from growing a conscious and speaking out against the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki’s behavior in their own best interest.
S.54 Think about this. How terrified the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki must be that they were willing to act and behave in this manner?
S.55 Obviously “they don’t know what to do” so they resort to using threats and intimidation to try compel and silence the applicants from allowing their co-defendants to know in real time what was going on.
S.56 Jennifer Feren even tried to bullshit the applicant’s parents, assuming they did not have a clear understanding of the act. In an attempt to prevent their co-defendants from still finding out the truth in real time prior to last minute.
S.57 You see as it stands right now. The co-defendants could have basically started preparing their own responses as this progresses forward. And in fairness to the co-defendants, they too should have as much time as they need and not be ambushed by sometimes unfair or unrealistic timelines. Where they too could forget about certain recollections of events, conversation in the pressures of getting their responses done and meeting timelines.
S.58 The applicant and his family have no concerns about timelines, as the HRTO has been very gracious, and they are thankful for the HRTO allowing them time to submit their material. And the applicant and his family are very comfortable with the idea that the DSBN and their co-defendants are given an unlimited amount of time to complete their responses.
S.59 Because, in the end, the DSBN and its co-defendants cannot defend the blatantly discriminatory and racist actions taken against the applicant and his family that is fueled by the DSBN racist community and culture.
S.60 And as the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Jennifer Feren would clearly prefer that their co-defendants have as little time as possible to respond to the massive amount of material. They will be hoping their co-defendants will be so overwhelm by it all. That they might overlook something that might be damming to the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki.
S.61 What other reason might there be for Jennifer Feren to pretend to be the co-defendants attorney?
S.62 First and foremost, none of the co-defendants would allow for Jennifer Feren to represent them in this matter. Principals and teachers each have their own unions and attorneys. Thus, they would and will look for them when the time comes.
S.63 Only acting on behalf of the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki is Jennifer Feren. And it is absurd that Jennifer Feren is attempting to impersonate and imply that she is the co-defendants attorney when request the applicants curtail their mandated obligations communications with DSBN personnel.
S.64 In response to the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Jennifer Feren illegal demands that the applicants cease from sending their HRTO material to all co-defendants. This email was sent to all co-defendants with email address, as well as directly to Kevin Elzinga, Cameron Stone and S. Masterson via their respective schools website.
To:jacqueline.ravazzolo@dsbn.org
janice.sargeant@dsbn.org
jennifer.feren@dsbn.org
kevin.maddalena@dsbn.org
maryanne.gage@dsbn.org
warren.hoshizaki@dsbn.org
tss@dsbn.org
I’m sending you this email because it seems that Jennifer Feren is attempting to try and intimidate our family into keeping you uninformed about the HRTO application that has being made against you and your co-defendants. It would have to be assumed that Warren Hoshizaki has approved this inappropriate behavior by Jennifer Feren against our family and yourselves.
Although you have violated our sons rights, we strong stand up for yours and your right to know what allegations are being made against you and your named co-defendants in the HRTO application. We do not believe that Warren Hoshizaki and his lawyer Jennifer Fern have the right to try and exclude you from the material being presented for consideration by the HRTO.
It appears that there might be a alternative motive for Warren Hoshizaki and his lawyer Jennifer Feren decision to try and keep yourself and your co-defendants in the dark. We will continue to provide you with the necessary material to ensure you are fully informed about the complaints, despite multiple attempts by Warren Hoshizaki and his lawyer Jennifer Fern’s failed attempts to intimidate us to stop.
To avoid receiving the material against you, please email koryread@yahoo.ca and express your desire to not receive it, and we will cease sending it to you.
You may also visit https://connaughtpublicschool.com if you wish to view the material online
S.65 So the big question is how did Jennifer Feren get the impression that she could represent each of her co-defendants as their counsel? It was evidently untrue that she was, because not a single co-defendant—not even Warren Hoshizaki—responded to the email stating they would like to stop receiving the material.
S.66 So what does it say and mean when not one co-defendant requested that it stop? It says that “WE” were adamant about trying to stop all their co-defendants from being kept up to date and informed in regards to the material being filed with the HRTO in real time.
S.67 As one of the defendants, Jenifer Feren is unable to represent any of the other co-defendants as it is a clear it would be a conflict of interest. At some point in time, she is going to have to protect someone, maybe herself and not others. So who and how would she choose to protect some individuals over others fairly?
S.68 It is clear that if I was a co-defendant, I would be worried that Jennifer Feren’s loyalty lies with the people who write her pay checks, and that would be the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki. And as a co-defendant, who is simply just a teacher or principal. I am expendable as I don’t hold the privilege of writing that pay check to Jennifer Feren each and every week.
S.69 The code clearly states “ Every person has a right to CLAIM and ENFORCE his or her rights under the Code, OR START or TAKE PART in proceedings under the Code without reprisal or threat of reprisal.”
S.70 So an act of reprisal occurs when a individual invokes their right to CLAIM and ENFORCE under the Code or when an individual STARTs a HRTO proceeding by filing.
S.71 So the facts are that the applicant and his family did not even have to physical submit an application for Jennifer Feren, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki’s act of intimidation and threats of legal action to be considered reprisal.
S.72 That fact that they simple stated a right to CLAIM and ENFORCE under the Code is sufficient enough.
S.73 And as the code does not outline any given measurement of the seriousness, validity or the weight of the consequences of a reprisal. It is evident therefore that ANY form of reprisal—regardless of how minor and insignificant one may think it to be—that ANY act that is done, that works in favor or negatively upon of the recipient of alleged act, constitutes as an Act of Reprisal!
S.74 So what again are the acts of reprisal?
- For CLAIMING and ENFORCING their rights under the Code.
- Or because “WE” believes that the applicants have STARTed a proceedings under the Code.
- For following the outlined HRTO Rules of Procedure in regards to filing documents.
S.75 So to demonstrate to Jenifer Feren, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki and all others inside the DSBN and its racist community and culture. It must be shown that these type of deliberate and intentional actions of reprisal done in bad faith, regardless of how minor or insignificant they may seem, are unacceptable in the face of any individual asserting their rights under the code.
S.76 Under no circumstances will this type of malicious behavior be accepted by the HRTO. And for Feren, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki unlawful activity. They ALL MUST consequently pay heavy financial consequences!
S.77 As Jennifer Fern is an offer of the courts and leader of this rally. Jennifer should be well educated in general law and should have a basic understanding of how the HRTO rules of procedures works.
S.78 Jennifer Feren claims that “I do know the OHRT Rules of Procedure.” Even though she misquoted HRTO multiple times, we will presume that she meant it.
S.79 And still Jenifer Feren, followed by the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki was willing to act in a unprofessional manner that was unbecoming and unethical of an officer of the courts. That deliberately intimidating, threating, misinforming, withholding and suggesting the applicants do illegal actions should call into question her ability to practice law in Ontario and Canada!
S.80 If the HRTO truly intends to eradicate racism among school boards and their employees. The first thing the HRTO must do is demonstrate to everyone that such shocking and repulsive behavior by Jenifer Feren, the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki will never be acceptable.
S.81 That anyone who participates or enables someone in this unethical, improper and unlawful action will be held responsible and will face severe financial penalties along with their behavior being evaluated by a HRTO recommendation to the relevant government agencies.