Material 1 – DSBN

To:hrto.efile@ontario.ca
chris.mcinnis@dsbn.org
jacqueline.ravazzolo@dsbn.org
janice.sargeant@dsbn.org
jennifer.feren@dsbn.orgmore
kevin.maddalena@dsbn.org
leanne.smith@dsbn.org
maryanne.gage@dsbn.org
neil.sheard@dsbn.org
trish.beaudoin@dsbn.org
tss@dsbn.org
warren.hoshizaki@dsbn.org
attorneygeneral@ontario.ca
Dated March 02, 2024

As we forgot to fill out the previous forms properly, we have corrected the issue. Please ignore both previous form 10’s dated February 29, 2024. We would hate to have our concerns about fairness and transparency to be “rejected” due to a “interminable list of improperly filed and particularized allegations.”

As stated in the Rules of Procedure / II) HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO SPECIFIC RULES / Filing Documents with the Tribunal / 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 and must verify that s/he has done so by filing a Statement of Delivery in Form 23 or by confirming the delivery to the other parties on the cover letter or e-mail.”

Since Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell is presenting a letter and asking for a decision/order from the HRTO that in a way that would be advantageous to both herself and the DSBN, her letter is considered a document.

When the HRTO states “This is a reminder to the Applicants’ representative that until the Applications are served by the HRTO on the Respondents you are not required to copy anyone on your communications with the HRTO.”

We are not clear to what section of, or Act they are referring to?

Is there a different statute, set of guidelines, or set of procedures in place for ordinary citizens filing complaints with the HRTO as opposed to attorneys? If so, do send us the link so we can know what the proper protocol is as well. Given that Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell is obviously abiding by a different set of standards than those stated above.

As Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell decided to marginalize our family’s expressed concerns about our son who has experienced incontestable abuse, assaults, racial targeting and hunting, insults, lack of support and protection by the DSBN community, physical violence among other incidents, all while in the care of the DSBN.

Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell decided to refer to our family’s expressed concerns as being an “interminable list…. that should be cursory review”

We ourselves would never want to be “disrespectful of any other participants” and their opinionsand actions by characterizing their covert, underhanded and unacceptable letter to the HRTO requisition a “hasty” review and final decision/order without including our family as being outlandish and of an oppressive tone.

Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell behavior is understandable, because as a Black woman, our family understands that sometimes people, have to do, what they have to do, to get ahead. Especially in a country where 50% of the nation’s population thinks it is NORMAL to have racist thoughts about individuals that look like Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell and our son.

We are sure that when the time does come, and racism finally does happen to Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell, or to her family. She will not be so quick to rail against a black child and her own Black community to “defend employers before the Human Rights Tribunal, at labor arbitrations and in courts.” From claims of racism.

To some people, (not our family) would call her a sellout, A.K.A. an Uncle Tom towards her own Black community. But to us she is merely the polished representation of diversity performing a duty that necessitates her safeguarding the DSBN and their community.

We can clearly see that Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell did not intend for us to receive the letter she sent to the HRTO on February 27, 2024, as she did not include us in the email.

Furthermore, as the HRTO notes, “This is a reminder to the Applicants’ representative that you are not required to copy anyone on your communications with the HRTO until the Applications are served on the Respondents.”

In light of this HRTO statement, then why did the HRTO attach our family in their email reply to Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell?

It is clear that the HRTO had to go out of their way to include our family in their email, as a simple REPLY TO ALL response could have worked, but it would not have included our family.

So with the HRTO statement of “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”

Is there a specific reason why a DSBN lawyer can secretly communicate with the HRTO in private by email / letter, requesting a “hasty” review and final decision/order without including our family?

Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell states that she “regularly defends employers before the Human Rights Tribunal, at labor arbitrations and in courts.” She is therefore VERY knowledgeable about the protocols when working with the HRTO.

And yet Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell has clearly and deliberately demonstrated that she is willing to act in bad faith as she tried to exclude our family from her correspondence with the HRTO in an attempt to gain favoritism via a one-sided argument.

Incredibly Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell states “We request the Tribunal to conduct an initial cursory review, or to put it another way, a hasty and therefore not thorough or detailed review of the content filed by applicants.”

That fact that Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell is willing to behave in this unprofessional manner, clearly show that she has no fear and is more than comfortable with the idea of trying to request a decision/order from the HRTO via secret communication. What would make her think she can do this?

And the question arises about the lack of correction and guidance to Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell by the HRTO and her inappropriate behavior and attempts to steal a favorable decision/order?

This again makes our family uneasy and wonder again, about the HRTO’s current views about or family and what appears to maybe be its inability to want to stay neutral in regards to our family’s filing.

Therefore, as a result of Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell’s attempt to deny our family’s opportunity to respond to her “cursory review” request that she sent two days ago on February 27, 2024 by email to the HRTO. We wish to notify the HRTO that we wish reply when Njeri Damali Sojourner-Campbell request when properly submit.

We would like some calcification from the HRTO on how this was all allowed to happen and why no correction and guidance was offered by the HRTO on this matter?