The It Is Just Unfair Treatment Argument.
D.1 Keep in mind that the applicant was suspended/expelled for 12 days by Jacqueline Ravazzolo, at the okay of the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki and Mary Anne Gage. Remember they determined and suspend/expelled the applicant before even giving the parents a chance to send their email outlining their sons perspective of the events that were agreed to by ALL PARTIES earlier that day.
D.2 Time and time again the attackers of the applicant walked away, free of discipline, uninterrupted education, and somehow the applicant is left being punished before even being able to explain his side of events. Every time the applicant and his parents are left wondering – What The Fuck Just Happened?
D.3 When it comes to the racist culture at the DSBN, it is genuine and it does exist. And although the applicant may be the first racialized student to encounter it in such severe circumstances over a long time period of time. He is not the first to have to face it.
D.4 First and foremost, “UNFAIR TREATMENT” is unacceptable and is not tolerated towards ANY CHILD/STUDENT within the DSBN system. According to the DSBN website “DSBN believes that diversity is a source of strength and innovation, and our schools embrace and appreciate the values, identities and lived experiences of students. Everyone has a story. It is through these stories that we will learn about our communities, their identities, beliefs and their backgrounds, which will serve as a powerful lens in appreciating students’ experiences. Knowing these stories cultivates a sense of community where equitable learning conditions can be nurtured, differences are celebrated and all voices are welcomed.”
D.5 Perhaps one of the defendants or the HRTO might provide instances in which a Caucasian student complained that they were treated “unfair” by a school board, and/or their Caucasian staff members because of their own Caucasian complexation. It does not happen!
D.6 Do not forget that Caucasian individuals, particularly women are the choice of color for the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki when filling and promoting DSBN positions.
D.7 Let us not forget that the DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki also have a very clear and obvious preference for “mix raced” individuals over just “regular” racialized individuals, as there is almost twice as many “mix raced” employees working for the DSBN than there is across the remaining seven racialized groups.
D.8 So at this point how could any reasonable person believe that the culture at the DSBN does not prefer Caucasian students over racialized students? There can only be one conclusion drawn from the preponderance of the evidence. The DSBN and its culture exhibit discrimination, racism and bias behavior towards students of color!
D.9 And any case before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the ultimate standard of proof is the civil (case) standard, which is on a “balance of probabilities” or “more likely than not” that there is a 51% or more likelihood the applicants version of events is true.
D.10 The HRTO cannot make any determinations against an application WITHOUT some form of EVIDENCE BEING PRESENTED BY THE DEFANDATS, as silence is not a form of a defense. No individual acting as a fact finder can make a reasonable, fair and unbiased ruling against an application when not being provided evidence from the defendants.
D.11 All parties MUST provide evidence, COMPELLING evidence in order to be able to tip the scale in their favor. This also means that THEIR evidence must be more plausible and conclusive than the other party.
D.12 Investigation is defined as; a searching inquiry for ascertaining facts; detailed or careful examination.
D.13 For a fact finder to make any ruling against an application without careful examination of the claims made and being based on not receiving or not requesting evidence from the defendants. Is purely a bias and personal belief and personal opinion, as it cannot based upon “a searching inquiry for ascertaining facts; detailed or careful examination.”
D.14 Appellants and prosecutors have frequently won cases thanks solely to the defendants own testimony, evidence and justifications. So to follow the HRTO’s custom of not forcing defendants to defend their actions in a civil proceeding, while continuing to discriminate against racialized individuals applications. It has to be viewed as an attempt to shield and protect the defendants and will be argued as BAD FAITH!
D.15 This type of bias behavior is nothing new to Tribunals Ontario. Racists adjudicators like Kevin Lundy who admit to allowing a racist slur to be used in his presence and do nothing to stop or address. Along with the LTB history of prejudices toward tenants and people of color continues and does exist. Why? We assume that the majority of adjudicators are landlords and property owners, so they do not penalize landlords because they are establishing a wrongful precedent for their own protection. Keep in mind that everyone has preferences!
D.16 Although in a criminal procedure, where the court must instruct the jury that it cannot draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify about facts relevant to their case.
D.17 In civil cases, Taking of an Adverse Inference, also known as a Negative Inference. Needs to occur when any party fails to submit evidence under the preponderance test. Which should thereby indicate that their evidence, if produced would be unfavorable and harmful towards them. So the ultimate standard of proof is the civil (case) standard, which is on a “balance of probabilities” or “more likely than not” that there is a 51% or more likelihood the applicants version of events is true.
D.18 What do we know to be 100% factual is…
- Three Caucasian DSBN principals (Christopher McInnis, Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Janice Sargeant) all permitted multiple Caucasian bullies and racist students to “WIN” without ever facing any kind of progressive discipline.
- The Black applicant was subjected to progressive discipline by a Caucasian DSBN principal, Jackie Ravazzolo, after being told by a Caucasian Marcus that he was “worthless” and “should kill himself!”
- Three Caucasian DSBN employees (Jacqueline Ravazzolo, Kevin Maddalena and Cameron “Cam” Stone) all deliberately lied in an effort to discredit the Black applicant, while indirectly supporting their lies with their perceived adult roles, positions within the organization and Caucasian skin tone in an attempt to protect themselves or a supervisor.
- Three Caucasian DSBN employees (Jacqueline Ravazzolo, Kevin Maddalena and Cameron “Cam” Stone) where not reprimanded or held properly accountable for their obvious lies by their supervisors.
- One Caucasian DSBN employee (Kevin Elzinga) acknowledges that during his time in class, a Caucasian student used racist slurs towards a Black student in his presence. And despite this, he did absolutely nothing to stop the behavior of the Caucasian student or two other students while the Black applicant had to sit only a few feet away and listen helplessly.
- One Caucasian DSBN employee (Cameron “Cam” Stone) made up a false racial incident in his classroom despite that there being no logical reason for doing so.
- The DSBN and Warren Hoshizaki have used racist, sexist and discriminatory hiring and promoting practices.
- In response to the Black applicant’s incidents, the DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and two Female Caucasian DSBN principals (Jacqueline Ravazzolo and Janice Sargeant) thought the best recommendation was that the applicant returns to the hostile environment of his previous classrooms after they failed and refused to fully investigate and appropriately address the situation with the offenders.
- The DSBN, Warren Hoshizaki, Mary Anne Gage and Janice Sargeant thought another great “option” was to suggest that the Black applicant go into segregation at the end of every day, for the next 3 months and stay away from all students in the school. So they in turn could avoid having to address the students of his geography class who were creating a hostile and cruel environment for him.
- Neither the DSBSN, nor any of the defendants have ever shown any form of regret for their actions, nor have they ever acknowledged or expressed any form of sympathy for the applicant’s cruel and unjustified experiences.