 
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
B E T W E E N:
David Armitage
Applicant
-and￾Ottawa Carleton District School Board
Respondent
______________________________________________________________________
DECISION
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Date: February 28, 2022
File Number: 2016-25087-I
Citation: 2022 HRTO 252
Indexed as: Armitage v. Ottawa Carleton District School Board
______________________________________________________________________
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

2
APPEARANCES 
)
David Armitage, Applicant ) 
)
Megan Evans-Maxwell and 
Shannon Sproule, Counsel
)
)
Ottawa Carleton District School Board, 
Respondent
) 
)
John Summers, Counsel
)
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

3
INTRODUCTION
[1] This decision follows a hearing into allegations that the respondent breached the 
applicant’s rights under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the 
"Code") with respect to educational services, because of creed and ancestry. 
[2] In the fall of 2015, the applicant was seventeen years old and attending grade 
twelve at a school operated by the respondent. His educational environment was 
poisoned by the threats, assaults, and discriminatory conduct of another student (“AB”), 
including conduct that was anti-Semitic in nature. Although the applicant is not Jewish, 
he was personally targeted by AB and the anti-Semitism was a factor in poisoning his 
educational environment. 
[3] The conduct occurred over a short period of time between October and November 
2015. Before the applicant came forward, school authorities were already acting on 
concerns about AB’s behaviour and possible mental health and welfare issues. As soon 
as the applicant reported his experiences, AB was suspended from school pending 
investigation for possible expulsion. Two days later the applicant’s family car was 
vandalized with profanity and a swastika. Charges were laid under the Youth Criminal 
Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (the “YCJA”) for the threats and assaults against the applicant. 
No charges were laid at that time for the damage to the car or other acts of vandalism AB 
was suspected of carrying out at school. Bail conditions prevented AB from having contact 
with the applicant or returning to the same school as the applicant.
[4] At the conclusion of the respondent’s investigation, a fifteen-day suspension was 
imposed for the threats and assaults against the applicant. The respondent concluded 
that there was insufficient evidence to discipline AB for the vandalism. The parties 
assumed the conditions would remain in place and AB would attend school at a separate 
location until the end of the school year.
[5] In early January 2016, the respondent was advised that the condition preventing 
AB from attending the same school as the applicant had been lifted, without notice, and 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

4
that AB wished to return immediately. The respondent conducted a risk assessment,
enrolled AB in a house building program that would limit his attendance on school property 
and attempted to work out a safety plan with the applicant and his parents. The applicant
argued that AB should not have been permitted to return to school. He alleged that the 
respondent did not take his safety concerns seriously and failed to address the 
discriminatory aspects of AB’s conduct. The applicant decided to withdraw from in-person 
classes to complete his final semester online rather than risk any contact with AB.
[6] The respondent acknowledged that the applicant’s educational environment was 
poisoned by AB’s conduct. The respondent argued that the steps it took to respond to the 
applicant’s allegations were reasonable and that in January 2016, the applicant’s parents 
failed to cooperate in developing a safety plan for the applicant.
DECISION 
[7] The Application is upheld in part, specifically with respect to the process the 
respondent engaged in before determining whether to permit AB to return to the same 
school as the applicant. 
[8] In the fall of 2015, the applicant displayed significant courage coming forward to 
report his experiences. The respondent took immediate steps to address the applicant’s 
concerns, and his educational environment was largely restored by the removal of AB. 
[9] However, in January 2016, AB’s return to school was approved by the respondent 
without a proper assessment of the likely impact on the applicant. The respondent had 
relied on AB’s absence as a key factor in remedying the poisoned environment just a few 
weeks earlier. The respondent was aware that the applicant did not feel safe attending 
the same school, particularly given the likelihood that AB was responsible for the swastika 
and other offensive words and symbols on the applicant’s family car. The evidence was 
not sufficient to demonstrate that the respondent assessed the available options and the 
impact on the applicant, in the context of all the circumstances that were known at the 
time. The decision to permit AB to return to school, which was made prior to meeting with 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

5
the applicant and his parents, contributed to the applicant withdrawing from in-person 
learning for his final semester of high school. 
[10] The respondent’s ability to fully assess the situation in January 2016, was 
complicated by the relationship between the principal and the applicant’s parents. Despite 
these difficulties, the principal fully supported the applicant’s transition to online learning 
and took significant steps to mitigate the adverse impact of that decision. This was an 
important factor in determining the appropriate remedy. 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[11] The Application was initially filed by the applicant’s mother, Laura Armitage, acting 
as his litigation guardian. By the time of the hearing, the applicant had reached the age 
of majority and was a student at the University of Guelph. The applicant confirmed that 
he intended to continue the Application on his own behalf and that he was not seeking to 
have the Tribunal anonymize this decision.
[12] The original Application cited the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin and 
ethnic origin. The applicant requested an amendment to the Application removing the 
prohibited grounds of race, and place of origin and adding creed. The amendments to the 
prohibited grounds were clarified that the applicant’s focus was on the impact of the anti￾Semitic nature of some of AB’s conduct.
[13] Counsel for the applicant was not aware of any publication ban made in relation to 
the charges against AB. Given that he was charged under the YCJA, the parties agreed 
to anonymize any information in the record that could identify AB. They also agreed to 
anonymize any information in the record that could identify other students who were under 
the age of eighteen at the material time. 
[14] In addition to the order amending the Application, various orders were made in 
relation to documents and witnesses at the commencement of the hearing process. Two 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

6
notable orders were made in relation to the respondent’s investigation and the risk 
assessment conducted in January 2016. 
[15] First, an order was made to produce documents related to the respondent’s 
investigation. I did not accept the respondent’s argument that those documents were no
longer relevant considering the respondent’s admission that the applicant had 
experienced a poisoned and unsafe educational environment. The sufficiency of the 
investigation was at issue. The parties agreed that Denise Croteau, who was the vice￾principal of the applicant’s school at the time, would testify in relation to the documents. 
[16] Second, an order was also made to produce a complete copy of the risk 
assessment conducted in January 2016, prior to AB’s return to school. The assessment 
was determined to be relevant to the issues in dispute and the parties agreed that all 
personal information would be anonymized. 
[17] The applicant stated and called four witnesses, including his parents, Laura 
Armitage, and James Armitage; Blair Killoran, who taught the shop class in the fall of 
2015 which was attended by the applicant and AB; and Andrea Freedman, from the 
Jewish Federation of Ottawa who was involved in events occurring after the applicant’s 
graduation.
[18] The respondent called Reg Lavergne the principal of the school from 2013 to 2017. 
He had been a principal at a different high school from 2009 to 2013. At the time of the 
hearing, he was the Systems Principal and the District Student Success Lead for the 
respondent’s Department of Curriculum Services. The respondent called Denise Croteau, 
the school vice-principal who conducted the investigation into the allegations against AB. 
She retired in 2016 and was not involved in the events in January 2016. The respondent 
called Brett Reynolds who was, at the time of the hearing, the Superintendent of 
Instruction. He also testified about his experience as a System Principal of Safe and 
Inclusive Schools and as a secondary school principal. Finally, the respondent called Dr. 
Petra Duschner a school psychologist who attended a meeting with the applicant and his 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

7
family in January 2016. A description of Dr. Duschner’s background is set out in the 
decision. 
EVIDENCE 
Introduction
[19] There was a significant volume of evidence introduced, all of which has been 
considered in determining the relevant facts. AB was not a party to this proceeding and 
was a minor at the time of the events. As a result, I have been careful to limit the 
information about AB and his family to what was necessary to address the issues in 
dispute. 
[20] This Application is about the steps taken by the respondent once it became aware 
of the applicant’s allegations. As a result, the focus is on the applicant’s experiences with 
AB, the information he reported to the respondent, the steps taken in response and the 
impact of the response on the applicant. Much of the evidence in this case arose from 
interactions between Mr. and Mrs. Armitage and school officials, primarily the principal. 
That evidence is primarily relevant to whether the relationship between the parties 
affected the respondent’s ability to take the appropriate steps to resolve the applicant’s 
allegations.
The Applicant’s Experiences with AB
[21] The applicant’s school had approximately 1300 students. He moved to the school 
in grade 10 because it was closer to his home. The applicant was a good student, got 
along well with his teachers and classmates and was very interested in music. He played 
guitar and was involved in jazz band. The applicant was also looking forward to practising 
and playing events at the school with his newly formed band. 
[22] The applicant and AB attended shop class together in September 2015. Over the 
course of several weeks beginning in October 2015, the applicant grew increasingly 
concerned about AB’s behaviour in class. The applicant stated that AB began to engage 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

8
him in conversations and go on “weird rants” that included disturbing references to violent, 
racist, sexual, and pornographic topics, as well as the holocaust, Nazis, and Hitler. When 
this happened, the applicant would try to redirect the conversation. 
[23] The applicant could not recall details of the conversations, in part because he was 
not always sure what AB was talking about. The applicant was obviously affected by being 
exposed to these subjects, but it is not clear why AB was seeking to engage him in these 
discussions.
[24] The applicant stated that early in their interactions, AB took one of his shop class 
binders, screwed it shut and carved a swastika into it. The applicant took his notes out 
and threw the binder away. The applicant stated that AB had also made carvings on desks 
and was destroying tools that other students were using. At the end of class one day, the 
applicant heard AB mumbling his home address. This made the applicant feel unsafe and 
he reported it to his shop teacher. The shop teacher reported this to the vice-principal in 
their first conversation in October 2015, about the strange behaviours the shop teacher 
was beginning to observe in AB. 
[25] The applicant stated that mid-way through the semester AB walked up to him and 
asked if he was Jewish. The applicant was startled by this and responded that he was not 
Jewish, to which AB allegedly responded that the applicant “looked like a Jew.” The 
applicant became concerned that AB was targeting him for that reason. 
[26] AB’s conduct toward the applicant escalated to threatening gestures. AB did not 
verbally threaten the applicant, but during one of the teacher’s lectures, AB stared at the 
applicant and silently drew a screwdriver across his neck in a threatening motion. The 
applicant was punched in the stomach at least three times when the teacher was not 
looking. He was winded and needed a few minutes to catch his breath, but he did not 
require medical attention. At some point in November 2015, AB threw a piece of wood 
into a circular saw that the applicant was using to cut metal which was very dangerous. 
The applicant responded by turning off the machine and telling AB that he was not going 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

9
to do any further work until AB walked away, which eventually he did. AB also carried a 
screwdriver in his hand and made jabbing motions pretending to stab the applicant.
[27] The applicant recalled that just before AB was removed from shop class in mid￾November 2015, AB was referring to him as a “bitch” or “his bitch” and giving him orders 
to do things in class. This was the only derogatory comment described by the applicant 
that was directed personally at him. AB did not taunt the applicant or engage in name￾calling that was anti-Semitic in nature making it challenging to understand AB’s behaviour 
toward the applicant.
[28] At the same time in mid-November, AB was suspected of vandalizing a project car 
in the shop class (the “shop car”) with sexist, profane and anti-Semitic symbols, including 
a swastika and the number 1488, a symbol of white supremacy. Just before AB was 
removed from shop class, the applicant saw him aggressively scratching the project car, 
poking holes in pipes in the engine and not seeming to care if other students could see 
him. AB was working with another student on the car. While the other student was 
working, AB was scratching the right front fender of the car. The applicant stated that he 
was walking around the car and saw a swastika on the fender. It was not disputed that 
the students were permitted to scratch the shop car and then repair the scratches as part 
of the project, although the applicant was taken aback by the way that AB was “storming 
around”. He also believed that AB was responsible for the swastika and other offensive 
words and symbols that were discovered on the shop car. 
[29] The applicant also saw AB scratch the hoist that the shop car was suspended on. 
The applicant went to look at the hoist after AB left and discovered a swastika. He stated 
that the swastika was at about eye level on the large metal beam going up on the left 
side. He believed that this took place about a week before the damage to the shop car. 
[30] The applicant was terrified of AB and afraid to report him. He stated that some of 
the students observed AB’s behaviour, but he was careful not to do these things in front 
of the shop teacher. The applicant began dreading going to class not knowing whether 
AB would be “normal” that day. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

10
[31] The shop teacher discovered the symbols on the shop car and removed AB from 
class on November 16, 2015. The vice-principal began meeting with students to 
investigate the damage to the shop car. Two days later, on November 18, 2015, the shop 
teacher’s car was damaged with similar markings. The applicant believed that AB was 
responsible for that damage as well, although there were no witnesses to this incident.
He was not alone in that belief. The shop teacher, vice-principal and principal all stated
that they believed that AB was responsible for the vandalism. It was at this point that the 
applicant decided to come forward. He was very concerned about the escalation in AB’s 
behaviour.
The Respondent’s Early Concerns About AB
[32] In October 2015, the shop teacher reported to the vice-principal that he was 
concerned about AB’s wellbeing. He described some of the behaviours he had observed 
and the applicant’s report about AB mumbling his address. The shop teacher was 
surprised by this because he thought the applicant and AB were friends and he had 
assigned them to work on projects together in the shop class. They discussed what could 
be done to support AB. The vice-principal asked the guidance counsellor to meet with AB 
and offer him support and counselling. The shop teacher also separated AB and the
applicant in class. 
[33] AB had no prior history of behavioural issues before the fall of 2015 and was on 
track to graduate. School officials were concerned about the changes they were 
observing in AB’s behaviour as well as his mental health and general welfare.
Damage to the Shop Car and Shop Teacher’s Truck
[34] The shop teacher reported the damage to the shop car and the fact that he had 
removed AB from class to the vice-principal on November 17, 2015. She met with AB the 
same day. According to the vice-principal, AB told her that he had permission to scratch 
the vehicle as part of the project. The vice-principal also stated that AB admitted to the 
profanity but denied scratching the other symbols. The vice-principal stated that she told 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

11
AB she did not believe his denials. She confirmed this in an email to the shop teacher 
and guidance counsellor the same day. The email includes several concerns about AB’s 
well-being and the fact that he would be meeting with a social worker. She noted that AB 
agreed to meet with the shop teacher that morning before he would be permitted to return 
to class. The vice-principal also made a call to one of AB’s parents. 
[35] The shop teacher sent an email to the vice-principal the same day advising her 
that AB had not shown up for their meeting and that “some of my kids saw him do it”.
[36] The vice-principal questioned several students from the shop class. Some of the 
students witnessed AB scratching the shop car but did not indicate that they directly 
witnessed him scratching the offensive words and symbols. 
[37] On November 18, 2015, the shop teacher’s truck was discovered with similar 
markings to the shop car. The truck had been parked outside the shop class doors and it 
was believed to have been damaged at some point during the morning. The vice-principal 
inquired about whether anything had been captured on security cameras. There were no 
witnesses. The principal stated that he believed AB was responsible and that this incident 
raised serious concerns for him because it appeared to be an act of retribution against 
the shop teacher for removing AB from class. The police were called to investigate, and 
AB continued to be held out of shop class.
[38] The principal stated that he had several phones calls with AB’s parents about AB 
being removed from the shop class and a meeting on or about November 19, 2015. He 
stated that he raised with them the appearance of the symbols and the numbers on both 
vehicles and his suspicion that AB was involved. He also expressed concerns about AB’s 
behaviours in the shop class and the possibility that AB had retaliated against the shop 
teacher by damaging his truck. The principal stated that he was attempting to find out why 
AB’s behaviour had changed, and he hoped that AB would be honest and admit what he 
had done. He did not go as far as the vice-principal who told AB that she did not believe 
him. He stated that he was worried for AB and hoped to keep working with AB’s family to 
get AB the support he needed. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

12
[39] The principal stated that the vice-principal provided updates on her conversations 
with other students about the damage to the shop car. Before the applicant came forward, 
the principal concluded that there was insufficient information to support AB’s continued 
absence from class. The shop teacher was very upset and would not permit AB back in 
his class and sought assistance from his union with respect to that issue. 
[40] The principal was asked in cross-examination why he did not suspend AB for 
committing an act of vandalism that caused extensive damage to school property and 
was motivated by hate, as is required under the respondent’s Student Suspension and 
Expulsion Policy. The principal stated that he did not believe that he had enough 
information to trigger this provision. The principal stated that when the applicant came 
forward and reported the threats and assaults, he felt there was sufficient cause to initiate 
a suspension pending investigation for possible expulsion. 
The Applicant Reports
[41] The situation with AB was quickly evolving. On November 23, 2015, before she 
became aware of the applicant’s allegations, the vice-principal met with AB about a 
vaping incident in the foyer at the school. She described AB as cooperative, and her notes 
from that discussion indicate that the guidance counsellor would be contacting AB’s 
family. The vice-principal also spoke with the School Resource Officer (the “SRO”), who 
is a City of Ottawa Police Officer assigned to provide support to the school community. 
The SRO intended to initiate help for AB through youth mental health services or the 
Children’s Aid Society. 
[42] The same day, the applicant went to see his guidance councillor and disclosed 
that he had been punched by AB and wanted to drop shop class. The applicant stated 
that the guidance counsellor appeared to be aware that there were concerns about AB. 
The guidance councillor reported the meeting with the applicant to the school vice￾principal. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

13
[43] The vice-principal met with the applicant. The applicant stated that he did not 
remember their conversation well. He recalled that the vice-principal asked him if he had 
seen AB scratch the shop car. He stated that he believed that he told the vice-principal 
that he saw AB carve the shop car with swastikas, that AB had been acting very strangely, 
the nature of the things AB had been talking about and that his behaviour was not just 
bullying but seemed rooted in hate. The applicant also stated that he told the vice-principal 
about AB scratching a swastika into the hoist. The vice-principal’s notes contain a 
reference to the applicant who “saw hoist getting scratched”. The applicant stated that he 
told the vice-principal that outside of class AB just gave him blank stares. The vice￾principal listened to the applicant, took notes, and reassured him that she had spoken to 
other students and that it was not just the applicant reporting AB’s conduct. He also 
recalled telling the vice-principal that if AB returned to school, he would not come back to 
school. The vice-principal advised the applicant to tell his parents about his experiences
or she would do so.
[44] The vice-principal sent an email to the principal on November 23, 2015, at 
approximately 1:45 p.m. advising him of the vaping incident, the SRO’s intention to initiate 
help for AB through her contacts with the Ottawa Police, the applicant’s disclosure to his 
guidance counsellor that AB had been bullying and punching him in shop class, and her 
conversation with the shop teacher about AB’s re-entry to class. The email does not 
mention the applicant disclosing that he had witnessed AB carving swastikas into the 
shop car and the hoist. She also reported that another student had apparently told the 
shop teacher that AB had suggested that he tattoo the applicant with a soldering gun. The 
vice-principal met later with the same student who reported that AB had asked the 
applicant, possibly jokingly, “want me to give you a tattoo?” while holding a screwdriver 
in his hand.
[45] The vice-principal also made notes of various issues, including things to follow up 
on, such as checking AB’s locker and notebook and the symbol 1488. She noted that 
AB’s behaviour was bizarre, especially toward the applicant, and that the same drawings 
were on both the shop car and the shop teacher’s truck. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

14
[46] The applicant went home and talked to his parents. He did not know where to start 
but slowly disclosed the details of his experiences. He also began writing everything down 
that he could remember about his interactions with AB. 
[47] The applicant’s parents were understandably upset about what the applicant had 
been through. They called the vice-principal that afternoon after receiving some of the 
details. The vice-principal advised them that the applicant had also been punched by AB, 
which he had not yet disclosed, and she connected them with the SRO for further 
information and support. 
[48] Mr. Armitage sent an email that evening to the SRO and the principal. He stated 
that the applicant had given them an account of “very serious and criminal behaviour” by 
AB. He stated that the applicant feared for his well-being and safety and was reluctant to 
return to school:
“David’s account creates a profile of this other student that is not simply a 
characteristic of a school bully. There is a deeply disturbing aspect to it that 
should be red flags for all. While David genuinely fears for his safety, he 
does not see himself as being bullied he sees it as a dangerous situation 
that is escalating in severity.”
[49] The SRO responded immediately and reassured Mr. Armitage that they would 
work on a plan to make sure the applicant was safe. A meeting was arranged with the 
applicant and his parents the next day. 
Meeting of November 24, 2015
[50] The applicant and his parents met with the principal, vice-principal, and the SRO
on November 24, 2015.
[51] The applicant described his experiences and did most of the talking at the meeting. 
The principal, vice-principal and SRO listened carefully to what he was reporting. The 
vice-principal took the following notes of what was discussed at the meeting: 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

15
a. Autoclass – followed the applicant, talked only to the applicant, talked of 
odd things;
b. Progressively strange – seemed to target me;
c. Bumped into me;
d. Punched me in the stomach 3 times during class a few weeks ago – 3 
different locations when teacher isn’t close;
e. Followed, carrying screwdriver in class;
f. Made motion across his neck while looking at me (lots of class saw him);
g. Then spike (picture of t-shaped tool) followed me around;
h. While cutting steel with saw, he threw a piece, block of wood into the 
turning steel – I turned it off…told him he needed to leave so I could finish;
i. Mom is terrified. The applicant was the one being nice to him. Is it safe 
for the applicant to come to school;
j. It’s weird, one day normal, next day who knows;
k. The applicant told the shop teacher that AB had been acting strange;
l. Talk of Nazis?
m. SRO – (the applicant was) encouraged to write down;
n. Scratching car? Nonchalant – not in a rush;
o. In GR 9, 10 auto with him too, no issues;
p. Less normal started in late October;
q. Lunged with screwdriver in class a week after the punches;
r. In hallways, doesn’t make eye contact;
s. On same bus, no issues;
t. He seemed to be testing the boundaries;
u. After lunging or throat slit he laughs and smirks and walks away as a 
joke;
v. (names of two other students) – AB was making fun of her. He took 
hardener, and dumped it into filler;
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

16
w. My concern way more now – silly is way better than scary, so we need 
to hear about this earlier;
x. Looking drop the course? No not me.
y. RL (Reg Lavergne) trust to leave it with me – I cannot tell you what I’m 
doing but I will contact you tomorrow;
z. SRO and Reg together;
aa.Parents want to press charges. Do restraining order.
bb.Are you re-assured if we keep AB out of class for now? Yes;
cc. 1. David safe; 2. AB mental health;
dd.James – mental health be mandatory?
ee.SRO – we have options under Mental Health Act – my only authority is 
to take him to Dr. (doctor);
ff. James: we will be willing to do anything to keep the applicant safe and 
get AB help – would you advise us when to move forward
[52] The applicant stated that the vice-principal’s notes were accurate but incomplete. 
He stated that he told the whole story at this meeting, including the fact that AB had 
screwed his shop binder shut and carved it with a swastika, and that he had seen AB 
carve a swastika into the hoist and shop car. He stated that he also disclosed that AB 
asked if he was Jewish. The applicant’s parents believed that these disclosures were 
made at the meeting. They do not appear in the vice-principal’s notes and the principal 
denied that the applicant disclosed this information during the meeting. 
[53] During the meeting, the applicant and his parents expressed their concerns about 
the applicant’s safety and the safety of other students. They discussed pressing charges 
but were also interested in getting help for AB. It was decided that the principal would 
attempt to address the issues with AB and his family. The principal told the applicant and 
his parents that he could not disclose how he would respond to AB, but that AB would not 
be at school and that he would give them notice before AB was permitted to return. The 
applicant was also advised by the SRO to write out everything that he could remember 
about his interactions with AB for use in the investigation. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

17
AB is Suspended
[54] The principal contacted the superintendent immediately and received permission 
to remove AB from school and place him on suspension pending a Principal’s 
Investigation pursuant to section 310 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 (which 
permits a suspension pending investigation of up to twenty days). The principal met with 
AB and then his parent to discuss the threats and assaults and the reasons for the 
suspension. The principal then called Mrs. Armitage to advise her that AB was no longer 
in school and that they would be given notice before AB returned. The applicant returned 
to school the next day, November 25, 2015. 
Violent Threat Risk Assessment
[55] The superintendent also authorized a Violent Threat Risk Assessment (“VTRA”). 
The vice-principal sent an email on November 24, 2015, initiating the VTRA. It was 
scheduled for November 26, 2015, and included a psychologist, a social worker, the 
principal, the vice-principal, AB’s guidance counsellor and the SRO. The principal stated
that all the information that had come forward to this point was shared, including the 
vandalism to the shop car and the shop teacher’s truck, the offensive symbols, and the 
actions toward the applicant.
[56] An attempt was made to obtain further information from AB who declined to be 
involved in the VTRA. His parents also communicated in writing that these allegations 
were out of character for AB and that they were not receiving any negative feedback from 
other teachers or coaches. The principal stated that they were trying to get AB and his 
family engaged in the process to provide supports. 
[57] The VTRA report references the damage to the shop vehicle and the shop 
teacher’s truck including the profanity and swastikas, the punches, the threatening 
gesture across AB’s throat, the poking motions with a screwdriver, and the incident where 
AB threw a block of wood into the machine the applicant was operating. The report also 
indicates that there have been no behavioural issues with AB during his years at the 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

18
school. AB was assessed at that time with an overall level of concern of “Medium (Medium 
to High)”. The report notes there is also a police investigation underway at the time. 
The Applicant’s Family Car is Vandalized
[58] On November 26, 2015, the Armitage’s car was damaged at their home in the 
country with the words “greetings bitch”, a swastika and a large penis. The carvings were 
large and deep. The swastika took up a whole door while the penis took up the entire 
hood of the car. The applicant stated that there was no doubt in his mind that these 
symbols were like a “calling card” and that AB was responsible. He did not know when 
the damage occurred, but it was discovered when he went out to take a driver’s lesson 
that evening. Mrs. Armitage stated that she caught a glimpse of someone on the property 
and assumed it was the applicant coming home from school. She later realized it was 
likely AB.
[59] The applicant stated that this was the peak of his fear because the applicant 
believed that AB had followed through on his threats by coming to his home and carving 
the car with a sharp object while his mother was home alone. The police were called to 
investigate but could not immediately locate AB. The applicant stated that it was a 
terrifying night and that he took his mattress into his parent’s room while his father slept 
on the coach downstairs. Mr. and Mrs. Armitage had security cameras installed outside 
their home for safety. 
[60] The applicant’s parents were understandably upset. Mrs. Armitage called the 
principal to advise him of the incident. She told the principal that the school was not safe 
and that they would be keeping the applicant at home. The principal stated that he could
completely understand the heightened emotion and how upset she was. Mr. Armitage 
went to the school and confronted the school principal, blaming him for the incident at 
their home and accusing the principal of ignoring the “hate” aspect of AB’s behaviour. He 
told the principal that if the hate crime had been against “Muslims, Blacks or Christians”, 
the principal would have had the student expelled. He also accused the principal of 
knowing that AB was violent and had punched the applicant without informing the 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

19
applicant’s parents. Mr. Armitage did not give the principal an opportunity to respond and 
ended the conversation by saying that “this was about to get very big and very messy” for 
the principal. 
[61] Mr. Armitage did not dispute this description of the interaction and his accusations 
against the principal, although he described his tone as “passionate” rather than 
confrontational. There was no foundation for his allegation that the principal withheld 
information. The principal had not been aware of the applicant’s experiences until he
came forward. Mr. Armitage stated that he was frustrated that AB was unsupervised 
during the day and felt the school was to blame for the damage to their vehicle. He stated
that he had advised the principal that they were prepared to press charges if AB was not 
enrolled in a program, or his family was not cooperating. 
[62] The applicant also stated that he thought the school could have done more to 
prevent the damage to his family car. However, on cross-examination he acknowledged 
that he was not aware at that time of what the school had done up to this point. He stated 
that he might have been less fearful if he had received more information about what the 
school was doing for AB. 
[63] The principal reported this incident to the superintendent. He described the 
situation as “getting rather spicey”, which the Armitages found lacking in concern for what 
they had experienced. At the same time, the principal acknowledged in the email that the 
applicant’s parents are “understandably very concerned”. He described Mr. Armitage 
“popping in for a louder chat”. The principal stated that he found it offensive that Mr. 
Armitage would accuse him of not taking anti-Semitism seriously. At the same time, he 
understood their emotion and fear after their car vandalized. 
[64] The police carried out an investigation into the incident which included the hate 
crimes unit. AB was not charged at that time in relation to any acts of vandalism. However, 
the applicant and his parents decided to pursue charges for the assaults and threats 
against the applicant at school. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

20
[65] The principal stated that he agreed that the damage to the Armitages’ car was 
hate-motivated vandalism. The principal stated that he was worried, and given the timing, 
very suspicious that AB was responsible. He acknowledged that there appeared to be a 
link between AB’s behaviour and anti-Semitism. The principal stated that the police were 
investigating, and as a result, the school did not undertake a separate investigation into 
the incident. The principal and the vice-principal believed that AB was responsible, but 
they did not receive any information from the police investigation implicating AB in the
incident. 
The Applicant’s Notes November 27, 2015
[66] The applicant did not take notes of the incidents when they occurred, but he started 
writing things down after the meeting with his guidance counsellor on November 23, 2015. 
He was also encouraged by the SRO during the meeting of November 24, 2015, to write 
everything down that he could remember about his experiences with AB so that they could 
be investigated. His notes were sent to the SRO on November 27, 2015, by Mr. Armitage
and were completed after the damage to the Armitages’ family car. The notes contain the 
following references: 
a. Always followed me;
b. Never had conversations with anyone else;
c. Grinded sheet steel scratched by AB with screwdriver;
d. Made motion as though he wanted to cut my throat during lesson;
e. Made scratches in shop desk with a screwdriver;
f. “Calm” period as AB started acting less strange;
g. Got worse again – said home number and I told the teacher;
h. Punch in the stomach once at the back of the shop near the sink and 
teacher’s truck (another student may have seen this occur);
i. I was punched on another occasion near the hoists;
j. One other occasion (at least) I was punched;
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

21
k. Began following me with a screwdriver – flat head red handle;
l. Had no reason to be holding a screwdriver;
m. Made stabbing motion with a screwdriver at least three time – on one 
occasion I was between the two hoists; 
n. Earlier around the times I was punched he threw a block of wood into a 
chop saw I was using to cut steel;
o. After I was followed with a screwdriver he began following me with 
another object (drew a picture of the object which is sharp and pointed 
at the end similar to the tool in the vice-principal’s notes)
p. Scratched shop car with a screwdriver – everyone in the shop witnessed 
this – also scratched the hoist
q. Seemed very angry at this time – bumped into my shoulder several 
times;
r. The next day it was found that the teacher’s truck was scratched;
s. AB was not at the school for the rest of that week and missed the entire 
next week of school;
t. Last Monday I told the guidance counsellor I had been punched;
u. Tuesday I told the principle and school officer the whole story;
v. Thursday (yesterday) our car at home was scratched;
w. The first time I brought attention to the issue was when AB followed me 
around saying my house number. (mumbling the house number and 
street name);
x. Told teacher “I honestly don’t feel safe”;
y. Nazi, Penis, Bitch (with an arrow to teacher), Jewish, Pornography, 
“faggot”, gruesome, sexual – conversation might start off normal and get 
weird – gruesome, sexual
z. Making fun of other student
aa.The way he talked seemed aimless, pointless, repeating of gruesome 
nature;
bb. A day or two before the car was scratched he was yelling orders at me 
“tighten the wheel bitch” and so on;
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

22
cc. Never made eye contact outside of class;
dd.The screwdriver he used to threaten me was a flathead with a red and 
black handle;
ee.At the end of period I would play a guitar that was in the classroom he 
would walk by and de-tune it – say I suck at guitar – substitute teacher 
may have seen this however, I forget his name.
[67] The allegations that were missing from the vice-principal’s notes are also missing 
from the applicant’s notes, namely, that AB carved a swastika into the applicant’s binder, 
that the applicant had seen AB carve a swastika into the hoist and shop car and that AB 
had asked if he was Jewish. 
The Respondent’s Investigations
[68] The situation with AB was fluid and evolving. The vice-principal began questioning 
students about the vandalism to the shop car before the applicant came forward. She was 
actively looking for someone who witnessed AB carving the offensive words and symbols. 
She inspected the area and documented the damage. She also uncovered a binder with 
a swastika scratched into it which she destroyed. When the shop teacher’s truck was 
vandalized, the vice-principal checked the security cameras and met with the shop 
teacher to take pictures and record the damage. The vice-principal met with AB to give 
him an opportunity to respond to the allegations and told him that she did not believe his 
denials. She offered AB counselling support and advised him that he would have to meet 
with the shop teacher before he would be permitted back in class. The principal met with 
AB and his family to discuss AB’s conduct in the shop class and the concern that he was 
responsible for the vandalism. 
[69] When the applicant came forward on November 23, 2015, the vice-principal met 
with him and spoke with the guidance counsellor and shop teacher. She spoke with the 
applicant’s parents the same day and took notes during the meeting the next day on 
November 24, 2015. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

23
[70] After the meeting with the applicant and his family, a principal’s investigation was 
commenced into the threats and assaults against the applicant. The vice-principal made 
some confidential inquiries with other teachers about AB and the applicant. The teachers 
responded that the applicant was reliable. They described AB as quiet and withdrawn but 
did not identify any specific concerns. The vice-principal also continued speaking with 
students to determine whether anyone had witnessed the vandalism or AB’s conduct 
toward the applicant. It is not disputed that the vice-principal quickly concluded that the 
applicant was telling the truth about his experiences with AB. She also stated that at least 
one other student had seen AB punch the applicant. 
[71] The vice-principal took notes of her conversations with students. The notes 
indicate that some of the students did see AB scratching the shop car. There were 
notations such as: “saw AB doing the Focus”; “yes I saw AB”; “didn’t see it?”; “saw it?” A
student confirmed that s/he believed AB was responsible for damage to the shop car and 
the shop teacher’s truck because s/he had seen AB randomly go up to the shop car and 
scratch it with a screwdriver. Another student indicated that s/he was “disgusted” that 
someone carved a swastika and profanity into the shop car but confirmed that s/he “didn’t 
see him carry it out.”
[72] Attendance in the shop class was sporadic and the vice-principal was not able to 
meet with all the students. She did not take comprehensive notes of her interviews with 
students, and she was not asked to prepare an investigation report. By the time of the 
hearing, she could not recall many of the details of her conversations with the applicant 
or the other students without being prompted by her notes. However, the vice-principal 
independently recalled that she believed AB was responsible for the vandalism, that she 
confronted him about this and was actively looking for direct evidence to confirm her 
belief. There was support for this from the shop teacher who stated that when the vice￾principal came down to examine the damage to his truck, she made a comment to the 
effect of: “now we’ve got him”. 
[73] The vice-principal also recalled that although the students she interviewed 
believed AB was responsible, and some had seen him scratch the shop car, none of them 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

24
reported that they directly witnessed AB carving the swastikas or other offensive words 
and symbols. She stated that at the time of her investigation, she did not distinguish 
between the shop car and the hoist it was on. She was aware of the swastika on the shop 
car before the applicant came forward and may have overlooked that the applicant was 
talking about separate scratches on the hoist. 
[74] One of the notes included the comment: “I read what she wrote” which the vice￾principal stated was a reference to a student who told her about seeing comments and 
photos posted to Facebook by Mrs. Armitage. The vice-principal made notes of the 
information on the Facebook page, including the impact of the vandalism to the 
Armitage’s car and a comment that AB “thinks he’s Jewish”, meaning AB thinks the 
applicant is Jewish. She noted that Mrs. Armitage wrote: “there’s little doubt that this guy 
will be back. It’s behaviour that’s been escalating without consequences for weeks”; “all 
they’ve done is suspend him from school, so he has loads of time to come up with hateful 
to attack my son”; “the police say it is not a hate crime”; “we are terrified and sickened 
and no one is able to help us”.
[75] The vice-principal was also communicating with the SRO during her investigation. 
This is a point that needs to be emphasized. The SRO was actively involved in the 
allegations against AB and was communicating with Mr. and Mrs. Armitage. She also met 
with AB for an extended period on December 1, 2015, the day he was charged under the 
YCJA.
[76] The vice-principal had an email exchange and telephone conversation with the 
SRO that day. She printed the email and made written notes on the paper about their 
telephone conversation which appears to include information about the SRO’s 
interactions with AB. There is a notation “again saw AB do swastika”. This was the only 
written note that explicitly suggested that someone had seen AB scratching a swastika 
as opposed to seeing him scratching generally. The vice-principal could not recall why 
she wrote this, but she did not believe that any of the students told her that they saw AB 
carve the swastika. She did recall making a note that AB had admitted to carving the 
“666”, but not the word “f…” or the “swastika” to the SRO (AB had apparently admitted to 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

25
her during their earlier conversation that he carved the word “f…” but not the other 
symbols). She also noted that the SRO reported spending two hours with AB and “got no￾where” but that AB “admitted to the assault and threats”. There are also notations about 
AB having possible health and welfare issues. The vice-principal recalled being told by 
the SRO that AB admitted to the assaults and threats against the applicant, which became 
the basis for the suspension that was later imposed on AB. 
[77] On December 1, 2015, AB was charged in relation to the threats and assaults on 
the applicant at school. The vice-principal and the principal were advised of this at about 
the same time. They were also aware of the conditions in place preventing AB from 
attending the same school as the applicant.
[78] By the time the investigation was completed, the principal and vice-principal 
concluded that AB had threatened and assaulted the applicant and they had a strong 
suspicion that he was likely responsible for the vandalism to the vehicles, including the 
applicant’s family car.
Fifteen-Day Suspension Imposed 
[79] At the conclusion of the investigation, the principal consulted with the 
superintendent about whether expulsion was warranted based on the information 
gathered. The superintendent stated that it was a joint decision with the principal to 
suspend AB for fifteen school days rather than expel him. The superintendent and the 
principal stated that they were confident the threats and assaults were proven but were 
not confident that there was sufficient evidence to prove that AB was responsible for the 
swastikas and other offensive words and symbols. AB denied the allegations as did his 
parents. The respondent had no evidence that anyone had seen AB scratching the shop 
teacher’s truck or the Armitages’ car. Police investigations were undertaken into these 
incidents, no charges were laid at that time and the respondent was not provided with any 
evidence from the police implicating AB. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

26
[80] The superintendent had significant experience with principal’s investigations and 
suspensions. He also led the revision of the student suspension and expulsion policy in 
2015. The superintendent stated that there was insufficient evidence to support expulsion 
and a recommendation to that effect would likely be overturned. The superintendent 
stated that in his experience expulsions are very rare. He would have been required to 
explain why expulsion was the only avenue available to ensure student safety. He was 
aware of expulsions occurring in cases involving stabbings, serious sexual assaults, or 
where progressive discipline had not succeeded. The superintendent stated that he did 
not see expulsion as necessary to ensure safety in this case. Both the superintendent 
and principal stated that they were hoping to work with AB to obtain supports and help 
him to graduate. 
[81] Although the conduct was very serious, this was also the first time that AB had 
displayed any behavioural issues at school, and he had no disciplinary record. The 
superintendent stated that they opted for a significant period of suspension to recognize 
the serious nature of the assaults and threats on the applicant. The maximum suspension 
that could have been imposed was twenty days. The superintendent stated that he was 
aware of what happened to the applicant’s family car and that it caused a lot of concern. 
He stated that the principal could not substantiate that AB was involved and ultimately it 
did not play a role in the suspension. The superintendent also stated that a 20-day 
suspension is more typically imposed where there has been a pattern of conduct and 
progressive interventions to which the student is not responding or where the victim has 
sustained injuries from an assault. He also stated that they considered the fact that AB 
had no record of past discipline, and that he was on track to graduate as mitigating factors. 
[82] The principal sent out the standard letter confirming the conclusion of the 
Principal’s Investigation which is dated December 3, 2015. He also sent out a letter of 
suspension dated December 16, 2015, indicating that AB had been suspended from 
November 25, 2015, to December 15, 2015, inclusive for “conduct injurious to the physical 
or mental well-being of other in the school”, specifically the fact that AB had assaulted 
and threatened the applicant. The principal stated that while he considered all the conduct 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

27
AB was suspected of during the investigation the suspension was specifically for the 
conduct they could prove.
[83] The suspension letter is a template that confirms that AB can return to school at 
the conclusion of the suspension. The superintendent stated that in hindsight, it was 
unfortunate that the suspension letter went out with a return date. Neither the principal 
nor the superintendent was consulted, and they did not anticipate that the suspension 
letter would be used in any way to support the removal of the condition preventing AB 
from returning school. While it is not clear what role the suspension letter played in the 
removal of the condition, the superintendent stated that since this time, he has been 
encouraging principals to create their own letters rather than strictly relying on the 
templates. 
[84] The principal and the superintendent expected that the condition prohibiting AB 
from attending the same school as the applicant would remain in place. The 
superintendent stated that this was a factor in determining the length of the suspension. 
He stated that considering the condition, he was not sure what would be added by more 
than fifteen days, but he also wanted to ensure that they communicated the seriousness 
of AB’s conduct. The principal stated that he did not tell the Armitages about the 
suspension, the end date for the suspension, or where AB was attending school. He 
stated that there was no risk that AB would be at school, the Armitage’s were aware of 
the condition and knew that AB was not attending the applicant’s school. He stated that 
he could not tell the Armitages anything about AB because of privacy issues, but they 
had sufficient information to know that the applicant would be safe without AB attending 
school. He had also committed to the Armitages that AB would not be returning unless 
he reached out to them first. 
The Applicant’s Return to School
[85] The applicant did not return right away after the incident at his home. Mr. Armitage
had business in Toronto, and the applicant and Mrs. Armitage were concerned about 
being isolated in their house in the country. AB had not yet been apprehended. The 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

28
applicant and his mother decided to take a short trip to Cuba where they had been before 
and felt comfortable, to take the applicant’s mind off what he had experienced. 
[86] When the applicant returned from Cuba, he returned to school. The applicant was 
aware that the police eventually found AB, that he was charged and that there were 
conditions preventing AB from contacting him directly or indirectly, or going near his 
home, school, and school bus. The applicant stated that the conditions helped but did not 
completely alleviate his fear because he believed that AB did not have any respect for 
authority. 
[87] The applicant stated that things were better when he returned to school because 
AB was not there, and he could socialize with other students in his class. He remained at 
school for approximately two weeks before the holiday break. He continued in shop class 
and his other courses. In January 2016, he passed his courses and completed his first 
semester. He had no contact with AB and did not report any incidents which may have 
involved AB. The applicant stated that he did not remember seeing any markings on the 
hoist or the shop car after he reported these incidents. 
[88] While the applicant returned to his school, AB attended a safe school for students 
on suspension. The principal acknowledged in an email dated November 30, 2015, that 
he had initially forgotten to inform AB’s parents about AB’s ability to attend a safe school 
for students on suspension. He stated that he communicated with the vice-principal of the 
school and shared information about the assaults and threats and his suspicions about 
the swastikas, and other vandalism. A student action plan was created for AB which 
confirms that he was suspended for threatening and assaulting a peer during class and 
that he was referred to guidance for unusual behaviours in October 2015. Under the 
section “other programs or services that may address these learning or other needs”, they 
had noted “counselling about the cause of the recent behaviours.”
[89] The respondent received no reports of any incidents involving AB, or any contact 
between AB and the applicant, while AB was attending school during his suspension. The 
principal stated that he received reports that AB’s attendance was inconsistent but his 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

29
academic and social interactions with staff had improved, and the vice-principal at the 
school was reaching out to him regularly.
[90] Mr. Armitage also stated that the applicant did not report any contact with AB or 
incidents of bullying or being exposed to anti-Semitic symbols in the shop class or 
anywhere else in school. Mr. Armitage stated that the applicant did not report any negative 
experiences at school and that he and the applicant were satisfied with the school 
environment in December 2015. 
January 2016
[91] The applicant was back to school for approximately two weeks before the holiday 
break and then returned to classes on January 4, 2016. He was on track to complete the 
first semester at the end of the month and graduate in June 2016. 
[92] On or about January 5, 2016, the principal was surprised to learn the condition 
preventing AB from attending the same school as the applicant had been lifted. Other 
conditions remained in place which prevented AB from communicating directly or 
indirectly with the applicant or riding on the same bus to school. AB’s family requested 
his immediate return to school. 
[93] The principal consulted the SRO and then sent an email dated January 5, 2016, 
to the superintendent, about AB’s return to school: 
“…He no longer has a condition to stay away from attending (school). 
My SRO does not believe that the condition to not associate with 
another student at (school) would prevent him from attending 
(school). She and I will speak this afternoon to confirm. 
Assuming everything stays this way, I’ll arrange a re-entry for AB.
The problem will be the victim’s family. I’ll contact them to let them 
know and to gather their thoughts so that we can develop a safety 
plan. I expect a passionate response from the victim’s family on this. 
They may contact you.”
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

30
[94] The principal stated that initially he thought he would have no choice but to allow 
AB to return; however, the superintendent later clarified that there were options available. 
He also stated that he knew the Armitages would be upset about this new information. 
[95] The principal did not participate in any way in lifting the condition nor was he in
agreement that the condition should have been lifted. The superintendent stated that he 
would have preferred that the condition had remained in place. He stated that the removal 
of the condition changed things considerably and there was a need to examine whether 
it was in everyone’s best interest that AB return. He was aware that the applicant and his 
parents were likely to be very upset. He confirmed that there was an option for an 
administrative transfer for safety, and for the well-being of both students. He stated that 
they needed to consider the applicant’s best interests and the impact of AB returning. 
[96] The superintendent asked the principal to meet with the applicant to see how he 
would feel about the possibility of AB returning to school. This would prove to be a 
flashpoint between the applicant’s parents and the principal. However, the superintendent 
stated that he supported the principal speaking directly to the applicant because he was 
seventeen years old and should have a voice in the things affecting him. He stated that it 
was important to hear from the applicant because he had been directly affected by AB’s 
actions and his feelings would be given a fair bit of consideration. 
[97] On January 5, 2016, the principal called the applicant out of class and asked him 
how he would feel about AB returning to school. The applicant was taken by surprise and
told the principal that he was afraid of AB and that he would feel very unsafe. He said he 
would be fearful for himself and other students because there was no reason to believe 
that AB had changed. The applicant stated that the principal did not respond to his 
statement about feeling unsafe. He also told the principal that his parents had asked him 
not to speak about these issues in their absence. The principal stopped speaking with the 
applicant at this point. 
[98] After the discussion with the principal, the applicant messaged his parents that the 
principal had spoken with him and wanted AB to come back to school. During the hearing, 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

31
the applicant stated that he thought the principal was trying to manipulate him into 
agreeing with AB returning to school. He stated that he believed the principal was defying 
a direct order from his parents not to speak with him without them present. This was not 
true and an unfortunate assumption on the applicant’s part which caused him to perceive 
the principal as someone who did not care about his best interests. 
[99] Mr. and Mrs. Armitage drove to the school to meet the applicant and to see the 
principal. They were confused and very upset that the principal had spoken to the 
applicant alone. They waited for several minutes for the principal to approach the counter. 
The principal advised them that he did not have time to see them but would call them the 
following day. Mr. and Mrs. Armitage continued to question the principal. Mr. Armitage 
acknowledged that he raised his voice and called the principal “a pathetic man” and was 
shouting at him by the end of their conversation. 
[100] The principal asked the Armitage’s to leave more than once and stated that if they 
did not, he would have to call the police. The principal stated that he was concerned for 
his safety. There is a substantial difference in size between the principal and Mr. 
Armitage. Mr. Armitage stated that he called the principal pathetic because he felt that 
the principal had mismanaged the entire situation and that it was disrespectful to threaten 
to call the police. 
[101] The principal reported the interaction to the superintendent in an email dated 
January 5, 2016. The principal reported that he felt unsafe. The superintendent 
responded asking the principal what his “gut” was telling him about allowing AB to return 
and come up with a safety plan or force a transfer on him. There was no dispute that the 
option existed to transfer AB to another school. The superintendent stated that the 
situation was complicated, that both families felt strongly, and they would have to decide 
what was in the best interests of everyone involved. 
[102] The principal did not follow up with the Armitages after the incident at his office. 
He agreed on cross-examination that it would have been a good idea to send them an 
email and provide them with the information that he was not able to discuss that day. He 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

32
stated that he felt that he could not communicate effectively with them, although he could 
understand that they were upset about the possibility of AB returning to school. He 
acknowledged that this would have been alarming and that it would have been helpful to 
give the Armitages more information. He stated that he was at a loss about how to 
communicate with them and was worried about sparking another incident if he tried to 
reach out. 
[103] In another email on January 5, 2016, the principal reported to the superintendent 
that he had met with AB and his mother, as well as the principal of the school that AB had 
been attending while on suspension. He confirmed that AB was encouraged to remain at 
the school, but that AB expressed a preference for returning to his previous school. He 
also stated that he had advised AB’s mother that the matter was complicated, and they 
did not have an answer yet on whether AB would be permitted to return.
Events Following the Interaction of January 5, 2015, 2021
[104] Mr. Armitage and Mrs. Armitage were very worried for the applicant’s safety. They 
spoke with the Crown Attorney. On January 6, 2016, Mr. Armitage wrote an email to the 
SRO, accusing the principal of facilitating AB’s return to school: 
Reg Lavergne has written two letters to the crown stating that he will 
welcome the boy back into the school with open arms. This has led 
to the conditions being dropped. After writing those letters, Reg then 
approached (the applicant) to see how he would feel about the boy’s 
return. He made no proactive attempt to contact us first or to see how 
(the applicant) felt. No follow up on how the applicant is coping after 
the holidays or after. But, clearly, Reg has been communicating 
frequently with the boy’s defense attorney.
I know there is nothing you can do but figured you should know a 
little about the man you are dealing with at (name of school). i.e: 
politically watch your back with him. 
The only 2 advocates willing to do anything for the applicant are his 
parents, and we were directed to leave the school property by threat 
of calling the police. So much for our partnership plan of protecting 
the applicant and getting help for the boy and his family. Reg is 
making sure that does not happen.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

33
[105] The SRO wrote back shortly after this email and advised that she was meeting 
with her supervisor and that she also wanted the applicant to feel safe at school.
[106] The SRO then communicated with Mr. Armitage by email in the evening on 
January 6, 2016, to say that she had contacted the Crown Attorney. She acknowledged 
that AB returning to school was a major stress for the applicant and his family. She wrote 
that she wanted to put some plans in place so that everyone was on the same page and 
had the same expectations. They also communicated that day about the possibility of an 
injunction and applying for a restraining order. Mr. Armitage advised the SRO that he 
believed the “Trustee would be willing to request a retraction of the letters written by 
Reg…” He also stated: “It is not the position of the OCSB to reinstate that boy, only Reg’s”.
[107] On January 6, 2016, the superintendent sent an email to the principal advising 
him that Mrs. Armitage had phoned a trustee and told the trustee that the school had 
provided letters of support in favour of changing AB’s conditions. The principal responded 
that this was incorrect and confirmed that he sent only the suspension letters to AB’s 
family. The superintendent confirmed that he advised the trustee that they had not 
provided the letters described by Mrs. Armitage. 
[108] The principal’s notes indicated that Mr. Armitage called him on January 7, 2016,
to ask if AB was at school and to confirm that he would be informed before AB was 
permitted to return. The principal agreed to do so. The principal did not have any further 
communication with the Armitages until after the decision to permit AB to return to school 
was made. On January 21, 2016, he invited them to a meeting with the superintendent to 
discuss a safety plan for the applicant. 
[109] Mrs. Armitage acknowledged during the hearing that eventually she came to 
realize that these facts were not correct, but it did not change her perceptions about the 
principal. She also accused the principal of lying but acknowledged during the hearing 
that she could not think of a specific example. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

34
Risk Assessment
[110] The superintendent determined that AB would not be permitted to return to school 
before a risk assessment was carried out. On January 7, 2016, the principal advised AB’s 
family of this, and the risk assessment was initiated by an experienced school board 
psychologist. 
[111] The principal met with AB and his family and encouraged them to participate in the 
assessment. The superintendent sent an email to the assessor on January 14, 2016, 
advising her that AB was a seventeen-year-old student who was suspended and charged 
with assaults and threats on another student the same age. He advised the assessor that 
the victim and his family are “VERY fearful” of AB returning to school and strongly 
advocating for him not to return. He also noted that AB’s family was advocating “nearly 
as strongly” for AB to return to school. The email does not mention the anti-Semitic 
vandalism AB was suspected of carrying out in the fall of 2015.
[112] The risk assessment is dated January 18, 2016. It indicates that the assessor met 
with AB and his parents. The risk assessment notes that AB was charged with assaults 
and threats, that there were recent behaviour problems at school, and he had been 
suspected of vandalism. She also indicated that one of the sources for this information 
was the SRO who had been involved in this matter from the start. 
[113] The assessor concluded that AB presented in the low-risk range on a formal risk 
assessment using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (the 
“YLS/CMI”) screening tool. She noted that AB had no history of significant behaviour 
issues at school or home or community “outside of what was happening this fall and the 
issues that lead to the suspension.” She stated that AB did not associate with a negative 
peer group, had no history of substance abuse, no previous police involvement and 
generally respects authority and the rules. She also stated that she felt that AB would 
benefit very much from some support in the areas of social skills and problem-solving and 
that these would best be addressed in one-on-one counselling. She confirmed AB’s 
preference for participating in a housebuilding program, which she strongly encouraged. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

35
She opined that AB could safely return to school and she did not see him posing a threat 
to the other students or staff. She commented that a safety plan could be developed, and 
she felt that AB would be fully compliant.
[114] The assessor sent an email on January 22, 2016, to the superintendent, the 
principal and the person who authored the VTRA in the fall of 2015, summarizing her 
findings. The principal and the superintendent were aware of the outcome of the 
assessment the day before, January 21, 2016, and the decision was made that day to
permit AB to return to school. The principal stated that he had been hopeful that they 
could persuade AB to remain where he was or attend another program, but AB wanted 
to return to school. The principal stated that AB had served his suspension, and the risk 
assessment had come back “low risk”. He stated that AB’s family was cooperative, and 
he believed that he had an opportunity to connect AB with the supports he needed. He 
told the superintendent that his gut instinct was that AB should return. 
[115] The principal stated that he recommended that AB enroll in a house building 
program. Students in the program are required to spend approximately seventeen days 
at the school and otherwise they travel directly to the worksite. The principal stated that 
he spoke to the teacher in the housebuilding program to inform him about the past, the 
risk assessment, and the need to watch AB very closely and report any negative changes 
in behaviour. 
[116] When he was shown the risk assessment during this proceeding, the applicant 
disagreed with the findings. He was not interviewed as part of the risk assessment 
process. He stated that risk assessment did not address the hate aspect of AB’s 
behaviour. In his experience, AB had displayed clear signs that he did not respect 
authority. The applicant did not understand why AB would be in a program involving 
construction and woodworking when he had threatened the applicant with shop tools. The 
applicant also could not understand the finding that AB did not pose a threat to him. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

36
Request to Return to School is Approved
[117] It was the superintendent who ultimately approved AB’s return to school. The risk 
assessment was a factor in this decision, but he also took advice from the principal. He 
was aware that there were other conditions that remained in place preventing AB from 
communicating directly or indirectly with the applicant or any members of his family, 
attending the applicant’s home, taking the school bus to and from school and possessing 
weapons except while in the classroom and completing work under the Education Act. 
The superintendent made the decision to permit AB to return and then arranged a meeting 
with the applicant and his parents for the purpose of developing a safety plan. 
[118] The principal also began to consider a safety plan for the days that the applicant 
and AB would be attending school at the same time. The superintendent stated that he 
was consulted by the principal about the plan. The principal stated that he had been 
working with AB and his family who were cooperating in his efforts to prepare for AB’s re￾entry.
[119] On January 21, 2016, the principal called Mr. and Mrs. Armitage to invite them to 
a meeting with the superintendent. He stated that AB would be returning for the second 
semester, but they wanted to meet to develop a safety plan for the applicant. The principal 
stated that Mr. and Mrs. Armitage questioned and challenged him and accused him of 
creating an unsafe environment. The email he wrote that day confirming the conversation 
with the superintendent stated that they referred to him as a pathetic man and accused 
him of advocating for AB and not for the applicant. He stated that he ended the call 
because he was not “prepared to deal with the verbal assault they were unleashing.”
[120] A meeting was booked for January 28, 2016. The superintendent emailed Mr. and 
Mrs. Armitage in advance on January 25, 2016, to advise them that the purpose of the 
meeting was to hear their concerns and discuss the steps that have been taken to date 
and what can be put in place to ensure the applicant’s safety at school. He stated that he 
could empathize with their concern as parents, but he had every confidence that the 
applicant could continue to attend school safely. The superintendent also spoke with the 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

37
Armitages by phone prior to the meeting. He stated that they were very angry and 
accusatory. Eventually he was able to provide them with an explanation about the 
purpose of the meeting. He thought they agreed that everyone was going to talk about 
how they could make things work at the school. 
[121] The superintendent stated that he clarified that the principal had no role in the 
removal of the condition preventing AB from returning to school, but the Armitages 
continued to make accusations about the principal not taking their concerns seriously and 
doing nothing to address AB’s conduct. 
[122] On January 26, 2015, Mrs. Armitage wrote a letter addressed to a school trustee, 
and several other individuals, including the superintendent and the principal, describing 
their experiences and their concerns for the safety of their son and the community. They 
accused the principal of “complacency” and a “failure to take appropriate action” and 
stated that he had written two letters to AB’s lawyer indicating that AB would be “welcome” 
back at school. The letter goes on to say: 
We are outraged that our school principal is an advocate of this 
disturbed student, who is raising every red flag typically reported in 
a tragic news story! How can a principal and the school community 
reunite our son with the boy he has to testify against – especially 
knowing that this boy threatened to SLIT HIS THROAT?
The Teacher’s Union and the Local Trustee are both aware of the 
case, but their hands are tied when it comes to taking action with a 
principal. What this means is that there are no controls when it comes 
to protecting innocent students from high risk, violent and dangerous 
offenders if the principal lacks the insight or courage to take a stand.
[123] The letter also includes several statements about AB, including that: “He needs 
help, and until that help arrives, he should not be integrated into the same environment 
that triggers his hateful acts.” Mrs. Armitage read the letter to the superintendent who 
urged her not to circulate it. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

38
Meeting on January 28, 2016
[124] The principal, the superintendent, and Dr. Duschner attended the meeting with the 
applicant and his parents. The principal took notes which were transcribed for the hearing. 
There were no issues with the accuracy of the transcription. The principal spoke for a 
short period of time about a safety plan, during which, he did not take notes. The
Armitage’s were told that they could not record the meeting.
[125] The conversation began with Mr. Armitage saying that they were against AB 
coming back to school, that AB was not low risk and that he remained a risk to the 
applicant and his family. Mrs. Armitage accused the principal again of writing letters 
supporting AB coming back to school and then meeting with the applicant after the fact 
to ask about his feelings. The applicant also acknowledged that at this time he believed 
that the principal had written letters supporting the removal of the bail condition. 
[126] Mrs. Armitage reiterated the assaults and threats the applicant had experienced 
and accused the superintendent and the principal of dismissing the applicant’s fear of AB, 
his mental health, and the stress he experienced. She accused the principal and 
superintendent of putting AB’s rights ahead of the victim’s rights. Mr. Armitage also 
commented that the applicant had suffered mental harm and anguish after being targeted 
by AB. 
[127] Mrs. Armitage then stated that no one, including the principal, had stood up for the 
applicant, that she was ashamed of the superintendent and the principal because the 
applicant’s parents had to stand there and defend him. She noted that the day before was 
Holocaust Remembrance Day. She stated that the swastika AB had drawn on school 
property “means nothing to you” and “you have nothing to say”. The superintendent 
responded that he had a great deal to say but not if Mr. and Mrs. Armitage were unwilling 
to hear it. 
[128] The superintendent spoke directly to the applicant and stated that he and the 
applicant’s parents disagreed. He explained that AB had done something wrong and had 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

39
received one of the most severe consequences that could be applied. He told the 
applicant that what AB had done was serious, but that it did not meet the threshold for 
expulsion. He stated that he was confident that the applicant would be safe and wanted 
the applicant to remain at school. 
[129] The superintendent told the applicant that the system is based on the premise that 
young people do things they shouldn’t and that they (school officials) are committed to 
working with them to give them a second chance. The applicant stated that he interpreted 
this as the superintendent ignoring how bad his experience was, how far it went and that 
it was just “boys being boys”. The applicant stated that this was condoning hate in the 
school. The applicant believed that the superintendent was completely ignoring the hate 
aspect of AB’s conduct. He also felt that the superintendent was minimizing his very 
significant fear of AB. The applicant was concerned that he had not been given any 
information about what was being done to help AB or whether AB’s attitudes had 
changed. 
[130] The applicant expressed fear of attending school if AB was also in attendance. He 
stated that AB had threatened him and others at school and damaged a teacher’s vehicle.
He did not feel safe and was worried about further physical violence and verbal assaults 
from AB. He did not feel that the respondent took seriously the risk that AB posed to him 
or the broader school community. The applicant wanted to hear that AB had received the 
help he needed and that he had changed. He felt that AB had not taken responsibility for 
his actions, including threatening the applicant’s life. Mr. and Mrs. Armitage also wanted 
proof that the respondent had effectively addressed the hate aspect of AB’s conduct. 
[131] The applicant stated that his goal going into the meeting was to find a plan that 
would make him feel safe at school, and that he wanted to be reassured that AB had 
changed and that the hate had been dealt with. He stated that he and his parents were 
frustrated and kept trying to bring up that there was more than just bullying going on. He 
stated that they repeatedly brought up the hate aspect, including the swastikas but that 
the school officials “never responded” and “said nothing” in this meeting in response to 
those issues. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

40
[132] The principal’s notes of the meeting reference discussions about the symbols, AB 
asking the applicant if he was Jewish, where AB would have learned about symbols like 
1488, Holocaust Remembrance Day and swastikas drawn on school property. The 
principal was also aware that the applicant believed that AB had retaliated by damaging 
his family car when he came forward. 
[133] The principal stated that he wanted to use the meeting with the Armitage’s to work 
through what needed to be done to make the applicant feel safe. There would be 
restrictions on AB’s movements at school and increased supervision. The plan was not 
fully developed before the meeting because the principal wanted input from the 
Armitage’s. The principal did not intend to place any restrictions on the applicant. 
[134] The principal stated that he talked about putting a tight supervision plan in place
and that he offered options including establishing which hallways, entrances and exits AB 
could use and when, places where AB could and could not go, and keeping the applicant 
and AB in separate classes. He could not guarantee that they would not see each other 
in a hallway at some point. During the meeting he stated that he could ensure that staff 
were present in the hallways during class changeover to monitor the situation. The 
applicant recalled some of these issues being discussed but was not convinced that AB 
could be supervised at all times. 
[135] The superintendent stated that Mr. and Mrs. Armitage were hostile and 
uncooperative and wanted a guarantee that the applicant would be safe. The 
superintendent acknowledged during the meeting that he would not be able to give them 
a guarantee. 
[136] Mr. and Mrs. Armitage stated that they were not satisfied that the respondent had 
done any real preparation for their discussion about a safety plan. Mr. Armitage stated 
that they expected a detailed plan to keep AB and the applicant separated and that there 
was nothing in writing. They also believed that the respondent had done nothing to 
address AB’s disturbing behaviour. Mr. and Mrs. Armitage expressed their view that the 
applicant’s fear was rational, and that AB should have been expelled. They stressed that 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

41
the respondent needed to address the hate that AB was exhibiting. The applicant stated 
that he could not be in the same building with someone who had threatened his life.
[137] Dr. Duschner testified at the hearing about her background and her involvement in 
the meeting. She earned her Ph.D. in Psychology in 1988 and has been a registered 
psychologist since that time. She has been employed by the respondent since 1988 as a 
staff psychologist, the Manager of Safe Schools, the Chair of the respondent’s Critical 
Incident Review Committee and since 2014 as the Manager of Mental Health and Critical 
Services. She has worked with schools on issues including school safety and students’ 
safety. Over the course of her employment, she has met with numerous families dealing 
with safety issues and assisting students on how to manage their safety and their feelings 
of being safe. 
[138] Dr. Duschner stated that she met with the applicant and his family for the first time 
at this meeting. She stated that she was asked by the superintendent to “back him up” at 
the meeting with the applicant and his parents but she was also there to support the 
applicant and address his fears. Dr. Duschner stated that her focus in the meeting was 
on the applicant’s well-being. She did not have a role in determining any restrictions 
related to AB. She understood that the purpose of the meeting was to develop a plan for 
the applicant that would allow him to feel safe at school. 
[139] There was a discussion with Dr. Duschner about the applicant’s fear of AB, what 
he had done in the past to deal with AB’s behaviour and how he could build resilience, 
coping skills and practical strategies for dealing with his fear. The applicant stated that he 
was afraid that AB would target him again. He had been afraid to speak with anyone and 
when he did, there were repercussions, like the symbols carved into his family’s car. Dr. 
Dushner asked about how the applicant had avoided AB in the past and he responded 
that it was strange, but AB only ever followed him or did anything in the auto class. 
[140] Dr. Duschner also asked about the applicant’s fear level since AB had been away 
from school. The applicant responded that his fear level had gone down and that he was 
more relaxed and had much less fear about getting to know other people in his class. He 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

42
described himself as more relaxed and not thinking about how to avoid AB. Dr. Duschner 
asked if the applicant was relaxed to the point that he was prior to the incidents with AB. 
The applicant responded “mostly”, but that there was still some fear because AB had 
come to his house. Dr. Dushner talked about the need for an agreement or understanding 
on AB’s part that he was to stay away from the applicant and other structures put in place 
to keep them separated. She stated that having neutral or positive experiences with AB 
present in the school, could slowly change his reaction to AB. The applicant reiterated 
that he still felt that AB might pick him out as a target. The applicant expressed a need 
for reassurance that AB had changed. 
[141] The applicant’s parents expressed frustration and accused Dr. Duschner of trying 
to make the applicant adapt to AB’s aggression. Dr. Duschner stated at the meeting in 
response that this was not correct and that she was trying to find a way for the applicant 
to build resilience. Mrs. Armitage compared the applicant to an abused wife who was 
being encouraged to stay at home with her abuser and learn to cope. 
[142] During the hearing, Dr. Duschner explained why she discussed with the applicant 
what strategies he might be able to use to help himself feel safe. She stated that she was 
not blaming the victim and that as a psychologist her work comes from a place of 
compassion, empathy and caring. She stated that she was not surprised that the 
applicant’s family was extremely upset because a horrible thing had happened to the 
applicant and emotions can run high in those circumstances. She could empathize with 
the applicant’s parents wanting to protect him and make sure he was safe and that anyone 
around the table who was a parent would want to do the same thing. Dr. Duschner stated
that her approach had been misconstrued by the applicant’s parents and that she would 
never blame the applicant who was the target of AB’s behaviour. She also stated that she 
was having difficulty connecting with the applicant because his parents were interjecting 
quite a bit. Her goal was to learn more about what the applicant was thinking, how he was 
preparing for AB’s return to school and how she could help him with a concrete plan to 
help manage his emotions.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

43
[143] Dr. Duschner recalled that there was discussion about swastikas being drawn and 
she wondered if the applicant’s parents were concerned that anti-Semitism was related 
to the targeting of the applicant by AB. She had not been advised of this potential 
connection prior to the meeting. Going into the meeting, she was aware that there were 
several serious incidents, but she could not recall a prior discussion about swastikas. She 
was aware of the damage to the applicant’s family car, but she could not remember if she 
knew about it before or heard about it at the meeting. She was not aware that AB had 
asked the applicant if he was Jewish. Dr. Duschner stated that at the end of the meeting 
she hoped to have another opportunity to meet with the applicant to develop a better 
understanding of his concerns. Because his parents had taken the lead in the meeting, 
Dr. Duschner did not have a good sense of where he was at. She stated that if she had 
known about any connection between anti-Semitism and AB’s conduct toward the 
applicant, it would not necessarily change her approach but if she had an opportunity to 
follow up, she would have been able to dig into that issue. She did acknowledge that it 
would not be appropriate for AB and the applicant to have any contact. 
[144] Dr. Duschner described the applicant’s parents as very angry and not wanting to 
discuss these strategies. She stated that the applicant’s parents were very clear 
throughout the meeting that they would not consider any plan that would include AB 
returning to school. The superintendent and principal also stated that the Armitage’s 
would not consider any other option. The superintendent stated that he was confident 
they were not creating a situation where the applicant would be harmed and that any risk 
of further interaction between them would be limited. He said that the Armitage’s were not 
satisfied unless they could get a guarantee. 
[145] The superintendent offered to have Dr. Duschner remain involved to assist the 
applicant and his family. On February 2, 2016, Mrs. Armitage wrote to the superintendent 
confirming that she was interested in that offer. The superintendent wrote back confirming 
that Dr. Duschner would appreciate the opportunity to speak with her further about the 
applicant’s needs and options for support. He offered to ask Dr. Duschner to email Mrs. 
Armitage. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

44
[146] Dr. Duschner felt that she did not have a full opportunity to connect with the 
applicant and discuss his concerns at the January meeting. She wanted to offer more 
assistance and sent an email to Mrs. Armitage trying to reconnect with the applicant. On 
February 12, 2016, she emailed Mrs. Armitage to say that she had been speaking with 
the superintendent and he mentioned that they could have a follow up meeting. She 
stated that she would be “most happy to meet with you and (the applicant)” the following 
week and offered dates. This was the only email address that Dr. Duschner had, but she 
was confident that Mrs. Armitage would share her email with Mr. Armitage. Mrs. Armitage 
wrote back accusing Dr. Duschner of intentionally excluding Mr. Armitage. Dr. Duschner 
wrote back apologizing, explaining that it was not her intention to leave Mr. Armitage out, 
expressing her appreciation for the impact the entire situation has had on her family and 
extending an offer again to meet with them. There were no further communications from 
the applicant’s family.
[147] The superintendent stated that he could not recall conversations with other parents 
that were more difficult or challenging than the ones he had with Mr. and Mrs. Armitage. 
He found that their positions were far apart from his own in terms of what had happened 
to the applicant what would be an appropriate response. He stated that the applicant 
should not have been punched and threatened, but his parents were equating this with 
his life being in jeopardy if AB were to return to school and the superintendent did not see 
it that way. He saw it as a serious issue that needed to be addressed but not a life 
threatening one. The superintendent stated that the school authorities were focussed on 
the impact not what motivated AB’s behaviour. However, he did recognize that the 
applicant was feeling threatened, had been physically harmed and his mental wellbeing 
had been compromised. 
[148] The applicant stated that he felt his parents were misunderstood and that they 
were trying to support him and have input into the safety plan but what was being 
proposed was inadequate. The applicant stated that he felt that he was not being heard 
or understood and his parents were trying to help him. He felt that the school officials 
were minimizing the significant fear he had about AB. The applicant made it clear at the 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

45
meeting that he did not feel safe if AB was there. He acknowledged that Mrs. Armitage 
said that he would not be returning to school if AB was there. He also acknowledged that 
he wanted a guarantee of no contact with AB. The applicant stated that AB should have 
been expelled rather than suspended. He believed that the respondent had not properly 
considered the hate and anti-Semitic conduct and should have been concerned about 
that behaviour and acted accordingly.
[149] The principal stated that he could not provide a full guarantee that AB and the 
applicant would not cross paths even though their intention was that AB would not be out 
of sight at any time. He also stated that the Armitage’s focus was on keeping AB out of 
school and that no other option was up for discussion even though it was communicated 
to them that AB would be off the property for most of the semester. The principal stated
that he had considered everything that had gone on and wanted the applicant to remain 
at school. He stated that grade twelve is a very important year and he wanted that the 
applicant’s experience to be positive and engaged. 
[150] The principal stated that he thought the Armitage’s were raising more of a moral 
objection and general outrage about the anti-Semitic vandalism as opposed to the 
applicant being personally affected. He stated that he believed that if they could work with 
the applicant and his family, he could alleviate the applicant’s fears.
Online Learning
[151] The applicant did not return to school after the meeting on January 28, 2016. He 
was not confident that he would be safe, so he withdrew from in-person learning for his 
final semester. He was given the option to be bussed to another school in another district. 
He chose instead to complete his studies online at home. The principal worked with the 
superintendent and the guidance department to identify e-learning options for the 
applicant. The applicant’s e-learning program was up and running by February 4, 2016. 
The principal also asked the guidance counsellor to reach out periodically to ensure that 
the applicant was doing well. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

46
[152] The principal developed a safety plan directly with AB which included AB not 
contacting or communicating with the applicant, using specific entrances and exits at 
certain times of the day, accessing supervised areas of the school, not going near the 
auto shop and a protocol for what to do if people asked AB why he had been away or if 
anyone spoke to him in a way that concerned him.
[153] There were further email exchanges after the January 28, 2015, meeting between 
the superintendent or the principal and Mr. and Mrs. Armitage. The Armitage’s advised 
that they intended to initiate a human rights complaint if AB was permitted to return. The 
respondent sought advice from their counsel and maintained their decision to allow AB to 
return to school in the home building program. Mr. Armitage wrote the superintendent 
about possible grounds for expulsion under the Safe Schools Student Suspension and 
Expulsion Policy and believed that there were at least four grounds on which to expel AB. 
I note that expulsion for bullying, which is one of the grounds cited by Mr. Armitage, 
requires the pupil to have previously been suspended for engaging in bullying which was 
not the case here. One of the grounds relates to activities that are motivated by bias, 
prejudice or hate.
[154] Mrs. Armitage requested a letter on the applicant’s behalf explaining the 
extenuating circumstances he had experienced since October 2015. In an exchange with 
the superintendent, the principal stated that if the applicant’s marks fell, he would discuss 
it with the teacher and consider whether extenuating circumstances applied. He also 
made this remark in his email to the superintendent:
“I guess it would be different if he had been so afraid he stayed home 
– but they went to Cuba! The level of fear was not evidence in (the 
applicant) when he reported this.”
[155] The applicant did not see this email until it was disclosed in this proceeding. He 
pointed to this as an example of the lack of seriousness the principal attached to his fear 
of AB.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

47
[156] The principal reported to the superintendent on Feb 5, 2016, that the applicant’s 
marks did not fall during the first semester: three of four went up and one stayed the 
same. His marks were consistent or better than his past records of achievement. 
However, the applicant stated that in his last year of high school he had hoped to raise 
all his grades. 
[157] At the same time, the principal was interacting with the shop teacher about AB’s 
grade in auto class from the fall of 2015. The shop teacher commented that he wanted to 
separate himself from the “reckless and unsafe decisions” the principal was making 
regarding the applicant and AB.
[158] On February 8, 2016, there was an exchange between the superintendent and Mr. 
Armitage about the request for an extenuating circumstances letter. Again, Mr. Armitage 
accused the superintendent of a “complete disregard for the applicant in all aspects of 
your responsibility owed to him”. The superintendent responded on February 10, 2016, 
saying that he would only respond to requests “made respectfully and in writing” and that 
he would provide similar direction to the principal. Mr. Armitage replied stating that he had 
not disrespected the superintendent or the respondent, reinforcing that they are the 
parents of a youth who has been “repeatedly victimized by an offender while in your care,” 
and that it is their right to “voice the shame we feel for your administration.”
[159] On February 11, 2016, the superintendent wrote to Mrs. Armitage following up on 
the request for support for extenuating circumstances. He suggested the text for a letter 
that they could provide. Mrs. Armitage agreed and thanked the superintendent for his 
assistance. 
[160] On February 23, 2016, the guidance counsellor from the applicant’s school 
emailed Mrs. Armitage asking how things were going and if there were any other concerns 
that they may have. Mrs. Armitage wrote back the next day to say that everything seemed 
to be going smoothly. She stated that the applicant was enjoying the courses. She stated 
that it was very fortunate that the guidance counsellor managed to get the applicant into 
all the courses he hoped for, including history and she thanked him for his efforts. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

48
[161] The applicant received the extenuating circumstances letter his parents requested. 
He also received approval for his volunteer hours. The principal sent an email the same 
day approving the hours and saying that he hoped the applicant was doing well, that he 
knew the guidance counsellor had been in touch and that Mrs. Armitage should let him 
know if there was anything else they could do. Mrs. Armitage emailed back to bring to the 
principal’s attention what she described as “disturbing pictures” that appeared to relate to 
satanic worship allegedly from AB’s Facebook page that were brought to her attention 
over the past weekend. She advised that the police were also aware of the pictures. 
[162] On May 24, 2016, the guidance counsellor wrote to the principal advising that he 
had spoken with Mrs. Armitage regarding the applicant’s e-learning exams. She advised 
him that the applicant would not be writing any proctored exams at the school. The 
principal arranged for the applicant to write exams at another school and offered 
compensation for his transportation which the applicant declined. 
[163] The applicant attended his prom. He also attended at the school for graduation 
photos, to perform at the “Coffee House” on April 7, 2016, and the “Oscars” on April 21, 
2016. He performed with others for Relay for Life on May 27, 2016, and on May 31, 2016, 
for a dance show. These attendances at school were not pre-arranged. The applicant’s 
parents were in attendance for some of the events but not all. The applicant thought that 
it was unlikely that AB would be interested in these events. The principal was surprised 
to see the applicant at these events because the applicant had not reached out in 
advance, and it was possible that AB would have been there. The applicant was offered 
an opportunity to participate in his graduation ceremony, which he declined. The applicant 
stated that he wanted to graduate with the rest of his classmates, but his mother advised 
him that they could not guarantee that AB would not be in attendance. The principal stated
that he would have been able to put a safety plan in place to allow the applicant to attend 
his graduation. 
[164] In the spring of 2016, while the applicant was completing his courses online, the 
principal was informed by a teacher that AB’s attendance had slipped. He tried to contact 
AB’s parents to find out what was going on. By the end of May 2016, he finally received 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

49
information back that AB would not be back at school. The principal stated that he did not 
contact the Armitage’s at this time or offer the applicant the opportunity to return to school. 
He knew that the applicant was going into his final few weeks in the online courses, and 
he did not want to create any chaos for the applicant. He stated that the applicant’s final 
marks were important. The principal understood that the applicant was doing well and 
was on track to graduate and did not want to disrupt him at that time. 
[165] The applicant’s transition to online learning was fully supported and he graduated 
at the conclusion of the semester. 
Post-Graduation Events 
[166] Mrs. Armitage alleged that despite the applicant’s complaint in the fall of 2015, 
anti-Semitic symbols remained in place in the shop class until at least February 2017. On 
February 26, 2017, Mrs. Armitage sent a series of text messages asking a student to go 
into the shop teacher’s class, unannounced, and take pictures of a desk, the shop hoist, 
and the garage door. She referred to the principal as “Regina”, a name that some students 
had apparently used to mock the principal. She asked the student to take pictures and 
send them to her so that she could send them to the Crown Attorney. The student sent a 
picture of a swastika on the hoist and a star on the garage door. There was nothing on 
the desk. Mrs. Armitage thanked the student and said that she hoped that no one had 
given him a hard time. The student responded that the shop teacher was nervous and
had asked him to keep the photos between them. 
[167] Mrs. Armitage did not report these photos to the principal or the superintendent. 
She contacted the Jewish Federation of Ottawa and her local MPP asking them to 
intervene to ensure that all swastikas were removed to remedy what she described as an 
ongoing poisoned school environment which began when the applicant was a student.
[168] The respondent conducted a sweep of the school. What was uncovered was 
immediately painted over. They could not locate the swastika on the hoist but offered to 
paint over it immediately if either the family or someone from Jewish Federation could 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

50
provide more information about the location. The principal stated that he was not aware 
of the swastika on the hoist in the shop class until this time. It was eventually located and 
covered up.
[169] The swastika on the hoist was small, faint and required some level of visual 
inspection to locate and recognize it. This is not to suggest that it should not have been 
immediately removed when it was discovered in the fall of 2015. However, it appears that 
it was overlooked after the respondent concluded its investigation. The shop teacher 
stated that he was aware of the swastika because it had been pointed out to him when 
the shop car and his vehicle were damaged. He had forgotten to remove it and then went 
on leave for a period. When he returned from his leave, he had forgotten that the swastika 
was there. The superintendent met with the shop teacher to discuss his actions in not 
immediately addressing the swastika. The shop teacher stated that he appreciated how 
seriously the superintendent appeared to be taking this issue. 
[170] Assuming, that this was the same swastika identified at the time of the applicant’s 
complaint or a separate one that AB was responsible for at the time that the shop teacher 
was aware of, I do not accept that it supports the applicant’s allegation that the respondent 
did nothing to address AB’s suspected acts of anti-Semitism or that it contributed to a 
poisoned school environment that extended well beyond the applicant’s graduation. It 
was unfortunate, but inadvertent, and no one had reported it, including the applicant, who 
had returned to shop class to complete the first term. While the applicant continued to 
experience the effects of AB’s conduct, there was no evidence that the environment 
remained poisoned when the applicant returned to school in December 2015, so long as 
AB was absent from the same school. 
[171] The applicant did not allege in this proceeding that there was graffiti on the shop 
door and as a result, I am unable to conclude that it was there in the fall of 2015. The 
desk had been sanded and repaired.
[172] Andrea Freedman, from the Jewish Federation of Ottawa, testified at the hearing 
about her involvement in these events. In February 2017, she received a communication 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

51
from a prosecutor who had received information from the applicant’s parents about the 
swastika remaining at the school. Ms. Freedman was not personally involved in the 
events that occurred prior to the applicant’s graduation and importantly, could not testify 
to what the respondent knew or ought to have known about AB’s conduct in the fall of 
2015. The information she received about the applicant’s experiences came largely from 
Mr. and Mrs. Armitage. This included information that was not true, like the letters that 
were allegedly written by the principal on AB’s behalf even. While Ms. Freedman did not 
have direct knowledge of the events that occurred in the fall of 2015, the respondent 
agreed to have her engaged in valuable educational work with the student body in 2017. 
[173] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the period during which a service 
relationship existed between the applicant and respondent, namely October 2015 to June 
2016. The events in 2017 took place long after the end of the service relationship between 
the applicant and the respondent. These events would only be considered if they were 
relevant to the period during which the service relationship existed. There is no evidence 
that the applicant’s environment remained poisoned because of the respondent’s 
inadvertence in removing the swastika from the hoist. As a result, the events of 2017 are 
not relevant to the issues in dispute in this proceeding. 
ANALYSIS
Legal Principles
[174] It is well established that human rights legislation is to be given a broad, liberal, 
and purposive interpretation. In addition to the specific provisions related to 
discrimination, the Code contains a preamble which reflects the kinds of experiences the 
legislation is directed at remedying. It speaks not just to equality in relation to the law, but 
also to the values of understanding, mutual respect and dignity and the necessity to 
ensure that every citizen can contribute fully to the community. The analysis of a claim of 
discrimination under the Code must be animated by these important principles.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

52
[175] The Supreme Court of Canada in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 confirmed that 
the “balance of probabilities” standard of proof applies to all civil cases, and, in order to 
satisfy this standard, evidence must be “sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent.” Not all 
allegations of discrimination will meet this standard, even where there is some evidence 
that discrimination may have been a factor in the adverse treatment a person has 
experienced. Intent is not relevant to a finding of discrimination.
[176] Section 1 of the Code protects against discrimination with respect to services. 
Discrimination is not defined in the Code. It is found where a protected characteristic is 
connected to some form of adverse treatment experienced by the applicant. Where the 
applicant proves this connection and the respondent is unable to provide a reasonable, 
non-discriminatory explanation or justification, discrimination will be found to have
occurred. See Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61. There is no dispute 
that the applicant was receiving educational services from the respondent and that those 
services are subject to the Code. 
[177] In this case, the applicant does not have a characteristic protected by the Code
and therefore does not meet the first part of the test for discrimination. The applicant 
argued that AB perceived him to be Jewish and targeted him on that basis. Alternatively, 
he argued that he was subjected to a school environment that was poisoned by 
discriminatory conduct directed at him by AB.
[178] The burden is on the applicant to prove that the respondent breached his rights 
under section 1 of the Code. The Court of Appeal stated in Peel Law Association v. 
Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 at paragraph 72, “the respondents’ evidence is often essential 
to accurately determining what happened and what the reasons for a decision or action 
were”. The Court of Appeal also stated, at paragraph 74, that “If the respondent does call 
evidence providing an explanation, the burden of proof remains on the applicant to 
establish that the respondent’s evidence is false or a pretext.” 
[179] To the extent that this case requires me to assess the credibility of the witnesses 
who stated before me, I have been guided by the principles established in Faryna v. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

53
Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA). I am also guided by factors considered by the Tribunal 
in assessing credibility in the case of Cugliari v. Telefficiency Corporation, 2006 HRTO 7 
at para. 26, particularly the Tribunal’s comments about the motives of witnesses and the 
inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimony. I note as well that a finding of a lack 
of credibility or reliability with respect to one aspect of a witness’ testimony does not 
automatically render the entirety of the witness’ evidence incredible or unreliable. 
See Shah v. George Brown College, 2009 HRTO 920.
Discrimination Based on Perception or Attribution
[180] Discrimination may be found where a person is perceived to be associated with a 
prohibited ground or where the negative characteristics associated with a prohibited 
ground are attributed to them. 
[181] The Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy on Preventing Discrimination 
Based on Creed (the “Policy”) affirms that the Code prohibition on discrimination because 
of creed extends to situations where a person is targeted and treated unequally because 
of their “perceived creed”. The Policy also contains an example of how perceived 
discrimination can arise in a case based on creed. In the example, a group of co-workers 
in a workplace directed derogatory comments about Muslims as “terrorists” towards an 
employee of Middle Eastern background. Even though the employee did not identify as 
Muslim, the employer was required to take remedial action.
[182] The applicant also argued that he is not required to establish that he was perceived 
to be Jewish to bring his experiences within the purview of the Code. The applicant relied 
on the decision in School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v. Jubran, 2005 BCCA 201 
(“Jubran”). In that case, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the “Court”) upheld a finding 
by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) that the complainant, Mr. 
Jubran, was repeatedly subjected to homophobic insults and harassment during the five 
years he spent in high school. The Tribunal found that it was irrelevant whether Mr. Jubran 
was, or was perceived to be, LGBTQ2+. The effect of the conduct was to attribute to Mr. 
Jubran the negative perceptions, myths and stereotypes attributed to LGBTQ2+ people: 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

54
“his harassers created an environment in which his dignity and full participation in school 
life was denied because the negative characteristics his harassers associated with 
homosexuality were attributed to him” (the Court in Jubran, para. 47). The Court also 
upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the school board was responsible for the discrimination 
as it had failed to provide an educational environment free from discriminatory 
harassment. 
[183] This Tribunal has addressed the decision in Jubran in a small number of cases, all 
within the employment context. In one employment case, the Tribunal followed Jubran to 
find that an employer breached the Code where it failed to properly address homophobic 
slurs and harassment directed toward the applicant whether he was or was perceived to 
be LGBTQ2+. See, Selinger v. McFarland, 2008 HRTO 49.
Poisoned Environment
[184] The respondent acknowledged that the applicant experienced a poisoned 
educational environment up to the point at which he reported his experiences and AB was 
removed from school.
[185] Most of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence on this subject arises from the employment 
context and allegations of poisoned work environment leading to constructive dismissal. 
In the employment context, a poisoned work environment can be found where there has 
been a particularly egregious, stand-alone incident or where there has been serious 
wrongful behaviour sufficient to create a hostile or intolerable work environment that is 
persistent or repeated enough that it becomes a condition of the complainant’s 
employment. The applicant’s subjective experience or genuinely held beliefs do not 
determine whether a poisoned environment exists. There must be evidence to support 
that conclusion from the perspective of the objective bystander. See, General Motors of 
Canada Limited. v. Johnson, 2013 ONCA 502, at paras. 66 - 67.
[186] While poisoned environments arise most commonly in employment cases, the 
concept has also been applied in the context of services in Josephs v. Toronto (City), 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

55
2016 HRTO 885 at para. 32 (“Josephs”) and City of Toronto v. Josephs, 2018 ONSC 67 
(“Josephs Div. Crt.”), and specifically with respect to educational services in Hemchand 
v. Toronto District School Board, 2018 HRTO 863 (“Hemchand”).
[187] The applicant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (the 
“Supreme Court”) in Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 
(SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 825 (“Ross”). In that case a Jewish parent filed a complaint of 
discrimination with the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission against a school 
district for failing to address a poisoned environment created by a teacher’s off-duty, but 
public, racist, and anti-Semitic comments. The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the 
teacher, who was in a position of influence and trust over his students, created a poisoned 
educational environment through his off-duty conduct. 
[188] The decision in Ross reinforces the general duty on an educational institution to 
create a learning environment that is free from discriminatory conduct and emphasizes 
that a poisoned environment can be created by conduct that does not take place in the 
classroom. However, the case before me is distinguishable from Ross for several
reasons. In Ross, the discriminatory conduct was carried out in a very public way by a 
teacher over several years, the complainant was Jewish, and there was evidence of 
repeated and continual harassment and general intimidation of Jewish students by other 
students. None of those circumstances exist in the case before me. 
Respondent’s Liability
[189] The respondent in this case is not vicariously liable for the acts of AB. Under 
section 46.3 of the Code, a corporate respondent is deemed liable for certain actions 
taken by their officers, officials, employees, or agents. There is no similar provision that 
would deem an educational institution liable for the actions of third-party students. See 
Hemchand, para. 78. The respondent may be liable for the existence of a poisoned 
environment if it fails to take prompt, effectual and proportionate action when it becomes 
aware of allegedly discriminatory behaviour in its service environment. See Hemchand, 
para. 77.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

56
[190] In addition, the OHRC’s Guidelines on Accessible Education specifically address 
the responsibility of educational institutions to maintain a safe learning environment, and 
to take effective steps to remedy harassment based on Code grounds once it becomes 
aware.
Responding to Allegations of Discrimination or Poisoned Environment
[191] A service provider has an obligation to take reasonable steps to address 
allegations of discrimination or a poisoned environment. What constitutes a reasonable 
response will depend on the facts of each case. The principles which were first developed 
in the employment context have been extended, with necessary modifications, to the 
service context. 
[192] In Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30 (“Laskowska”), the 
Tribunal found that the employer owed a duty to a complainant to act reasonably and to 
adequately respond to her allegations of sexual harassment. In evaluating the employer’s 
response, the Tribunal considered the following factors: 
a. Awareness of issues of discrimination/harassment, policy, 
complaint mechanism and training: Was there an awareness of 
issues of discrimination and harassment in the workplace at the 
time of the incident? Was there a suitable anti￾discrimination/harassment policy? Was there a proper complaint 
mechanism in place? Was adequate training given to 
management and employees;
b. Post-complaint: seriousness, promptness, taking care of its 
employee, investigation and action: Once an internal complaint 
was made, did the employer treat it seriously? Did it deal with the 
matter promptly and sensitively? Did it reasonably investigate 
and act; and
c. Resolution of the complaint (including providing the complainant 
with a healthy work environment) and communication: Did the 
employer provide a reasonable resolution in the circumstances? 
If the complainant chose to return to work, could the employer 
provide her/him with a healthy, discrimination-free work 
environment? Did it communicate its findings and actions to the 
complainant?
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

57
[193] The response is assessed on the standard of reasonableness, not correctness or 
perfection. A respondent need not satisfy each element in every case to be found to have 
acted reasonably. One must look at each element individually and then in the aggregate 
before passing judgment on whether the respondent acted reasonably. See Ibrahim v. 
Hilton Toronto, 2013 HRTO 673 at para 112, citing Laskowska, at para. 60. 
[194] In Josephs, the Tribunal applied the principles in Laskowska to a service case, 
with necessary modifications to recognize the more limited control that a service provider 
would have over its customers compared to the control that an employer exerts over its 
employees (Josephs Div. Crt. at para. 15). In that case, Mr. Josephs was a customer who 
complained that he had been targeted with a racial slur by another customer while he 
waited for service in a City of Toronto office. The Tribunal held that the City of Toronto, 
as a service provider, had an obligation to take prompt, effectual and proportionate action 
when it became aware of the racial slur. The Tribunal found that the response need not 
be perfect, but it did need to be reasonable in the circumstances. (Josephs Div. Crt. at 
para. 16).
[195] These principles were further extended to the context of educational services in 
Hemchand. In that case, a student came forward alleging that the respondent 
discriminated against him based on age. He alleged that the respondent failed to 
appropriately deal with age-related discrimination and harassment from other students 
and a teacher. The Tribunal found that the respondent could only be liable in such a case 
if it failed to respond in a prompt, effective and proportional manner to the applicant’s 
allegations. 
[196] The allegations in Josephs and Hemchand, along with the other cases relied on
by the parties arising from the employment or educational context, were made by a person 
who self-identified with a prohibited ground and alleged that they had experience 
discrimination on that basis. Laskowska is not a perfect fit for a case arising in the 
educational context involving students who were minors at the time and an applicant who 
did not complain of discrimination based on his own creed and ancestry. The applicant 
complained that he was being threatened and assaulted by a classmate who appeared 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

58
to be motivated by hate and was engaged in range of disturbing behaviours. However, 
the basic principle that the response must be prompt (which is not disputed here), 
effective, and proportional, is sufficiently flexible to apply here, bearing in mind the unique 
circumstances of this case. 
[197] The applicant has alleged that the respondent should have responded by expelling 
AB rather than suspending him. It is not the role of the Tribunal to “second guess” 
disciplinary decisions made by educational institutions. See: B.C. v. Durham Catholic 
District School Board, 2014 HRTO 42 at para 224: cited with approval by the Tribunal in 
M.H. vs. Waterloo Region District School Board, 2017 HRTO 397 at para. 55 (“M.H.”).
The question in this case is whether the respondent’s actions were reasonable in the 
circumstances. 
[198] This was a fully contested case. I considered all the evidence before determining 
whether the applicant satisfied the legal burden of establishing on a balance of 
probabilities that a breach of the Code occurred. See Pieters, at para. 83.
Findings
Introduction 
[199] It is important to acknowledge the applicant’s courage in reporting his experiences
to school authorities. He came forward, despite his fears, out of a sense of responsibility 
toward other students, and his community. He took a significant risk and suffered a
threatening and hate-motivated retaliation as a result. Just a few weeks later, the 
applicant’s educational environment was destabilized again by the news that AB might 
be returning to school. It was apparent throughout the hearing that the applicant continues 
to reflect on the events of his last year of high school. He also has insight, well beyond 
his years, into the dangers of anti-Semitism and other forms of hate-motivated conduct.
[200] This Application is about the steps taken by the respondent in response to the 
applicant’s concerns about his educational environment. The applicant did not take issue 
with the promptness of the response. He argued that the response was not effective or 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

59
proportionate because it addressed only part of his experience. The applicant repeatedly 
alleged that the respondent ignored, failed to understand, care about, or take seriously 
the anti-Semitic aspects of AB’s behaviour, and focussed only on the threats and assaults 
he experienced. As a result, the respondent allegedly failed to properly assess the risk 
that AB posed to his safety. The applicant argued that the respondent should have 
expelled AB in the fall of 2015 or forced him to transfer to another school in January 2016. 
The applicant also argued that the respondent should have addressed the anti-Semitic 
aspect of AB’s conduct in a more systemic way, by ensuring, among other things, that AB 
got the help he needed, that his conduct was publicly denounced, and that students and 
teachers received further education and training. 
[201] The respondent acknowledged that the applicant had been assaulted and 
threatened by AB and that his educational environment was poisoned and unsafe before 
he came forward. The respondent argued that it took reasonable steps to address the 
applicant’s concerns and that his educational environment was restored shortly after he 
reported his experiences. The respondent argued that the evidence was not sufficient to 
support expulsion or disciplinary action for the acts of vandalism at school and the 
applicant’s home. AB had no history of any behavioural issues, and he was on track to 
graduate which were factors in determining the appropriate consequence. The 
respondent argued that there was no evidence of a systemic issue at the school that 
needed to be addressed. The respondent also argued that the events that occurred in 
January 2016, when the bail condition was lifted, have no link to the Code and that the 
applicant’s parents were uncooperative in its efforts to plan for the applicant’s safety. 
[202] I have found that in the fall of 2015, the respondent took reasonable steps to 
address the applicant’s educational environment. The response was immediate, the 
applicant’s allegations were taken seriously, treated with sensitivity, and investigated. AB 
was suspended, and the applicant continued to attend school through to January 2016 
satisfied with the state of his educational environment. Overall, the response was prompt, 
effective and proportionate to the unique circumstances of the case. It was also 
reasonable for the respondent to rely, at that time, on the outcome of the police 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

60
investigations and the likelihood that the bail condition would prevent AB from returning 
before the applicant graduated in June 2016.
[203] I have found that the events beginning in January 2016 resulted in a breach of the 
Code, although the effects were lessened by the respondent’s support of the applicant 
when he withdrew from in-person learning. In January 2016, the resolution of the 
applicant’s educational environment was upended by the sudden removal of the condition 
precluding AB from attending the same school. The superintendent acknowledged that 
this change in AB’s circumstances made it necessary for the respondent to reassess the 
situation and determine what was in everyone’s best interest.
[204] The respondent satisfied part of its obligation in this respect by conducting a risk 
assessment, assessing AB’s needs, working closely with AB’s family and enrolling AB in 
a program that he was interested in and would minimize his time on school property. The 
second part was to assess the consequences for the applicant of permitting AB to return. 
I recognize that the applicant’s parents put up significant barriers to communicating 
effectively with the respondent about the applicant’s needs. However, the applicant had 
been consistent throughout that he could not attend school if AB was present, and he 
reiterated his fear of AB in the conversation with the principal on January 5, 2016. The
respondent did not demonstrate how it assessed the likely impact on the applicant based 
on the information that was known at the time. This would include considering incidents 
that were not the subject of formal discipline but would likely have an impact on the 
applicant’s ability to feel safe at school, the most obvious of which was the incident at the 
applicant’s home. Instead, the respondent proceeded as if the applicant’s fears were 
unreasonable and that a safety plan would be responsive to the applicant’s needs. When 
the parties met on January 28, 2016, the applicant expressed concerns that would have 
been relevant to the decision to permit AB to return, but by that time, the decision had 
been made. 
[205] I have provided further reasons for these findings below, beginning with how the 
Code applies to the applicant’s circumstances as a person who does not self-identify with 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

61
a prohibited ground under the Code, followed by an analysis of the respondent’s actions 
in the fall of 2015 and January 2016. 
The Code Applies to the Applicant’s Experiences
[206] The applicant argued that he was targeted because AB perceived him to be 
Jewish. Alternatively, the discriminatory nature of the conduct directed at him brings him 
within the protections of the Code regardless of AB’s perceptions and motivations. I agree 
that it is not necessary for the applicant to prove that AB perceived him to be Jewish. The 
evidence established that the applicant’s educational environment was poisoned, not just 
by the kind of threats and assaults that would engage the Education Act, but by 
discriminatory conduct that engages the Code. The applicant did not compartmentalize 
one form of conduct from the other. Considering this from the applicant’s perspective, one 
can readily understand how all his experiences with AB combined to heighten his fear 
and sense of risk.
[207] The applicant was targeted by conduct that was anti-Semitic in nature and exposed 
to conduct that was linked to multiple prohibited grounds under the Code. The conduct 
was physically and psychologically threatening and harmful. The applicant was never 
sure how AB would behave and it became a condition of his attendance in shop class to 
avoid or endure the behaviour. When AB was suspended, he retaliated by vandalizing 
the applicant’s family car with words and symbols that the applicant was meant to 
recognize as a “calling card”. The principal acknowledged that this was likely an act of 
retaliation and that the applicant had been the victim of hate-motivated violence. This 
incident was just as relevant to the applicant’s feelings about his school environment as
any incident that occurred on school property. Those facts are sufficient to establish a 
poisoned educational environment, from the perspective of an objective bystander. 
[208] Given the finding that the applicant experienced an educational environment that 
was poisoned in part by discriminatory conduct, it is unnecessary for me to determine 
whether AB perceived the applicant to be Jewish. It was reasonable for the applicant to 
wonder about AB’s motivations, and it is possible his suspicions in this respect were 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

62
correct. However, AB’s treatment of the applicant raised more questions than answers, 
which is something the Armitages and the respondent were grappling with when the 
applicant came forward. It is not clear what caused AB to begin acting out toward the 
applicant personally. There was no context provided for the interaction during which AB 
asked the applicant if he was Jewish, and the applicant did not testify about more than 
one conversation like this. The applicant was not taunted with anti-Semitic slurs, unlike 
the applicant in Jubran, who was repeatedly subjected to homophobic slurs, allowing for 
a clear inference to be drawn that he was experiencing a human rights violation. The 
applicant was not the subject of AB’s disturbing comments during class and there was no 
explanation for why AB was attempting to engage the applicant in these conversations. 
AB carved a swastika into the applicant’s binder but there were other binders and shop 
equipment that were carved with the same symbol. There was no evidence that the 
swastikas on the hoist, shop car or the shop teacher’s truck were directed at the applicant. 
In addition, the swastika on the Armitages’ car was carved long after the applicant made 
it clear to AB that he was not Jewish. 
[209] As I have previously indicated, not all allegations of discrimination are capable of 
being proven on a balance of probabilities. However, the applicant experienced a 
poisoned educational environment and had a rational and ongoing fear that there was a 
connection between the disturbing anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, and homophobic conduct 
that he had been exposed to and the threats and assaults he experienced. 
The Context for Assessing the Respondent’s Actions
[210] What constitutes a reasonable response depends on the unique circumstances of 
each case. The Tribunal is also required to assess the respondent’s actions in the context 
of what was known or ought to have been known at the time. When the full context is 
considered, there are several unique circumstances that distinguish this case from the 
cases relied on by the parties. 
[211] First, AB was seventeen years old, in his last year of high school and on track to 
graduate. He had no history of behavioural issues prior to the fall of 2015. He engaged in 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

63
a wide range of random, anti-social behaviours over a short period of time, including acts 
of anti-Semitic vandalism and juvenile carvings of male genitality and profanity. The shop 
teacher had previously reported his observations about AB’s strange behaviours in class
and possible concerns about his health and welfare. School officials were actively 
engaged in trying to find out what was causing such a shift in AB’s behaviour. They met 
with his parents and offered support and counselling.
[212] AB was initially treated as a student in need of guidance and support, not a white 
supremacist. The principal stated that swastikas do appear at the school from time to 
time, particularly during periods when students are learning about the Holocaust. He also 
stated that for the most part, when students are found to have been drawing swastikas in 
their notebooks or on school property, it is apparent that they do not have a full 
understanding of the consequences of their actions. The principal stated that in those 
cases, the approach he takes is to educate students about the harm these symbols 
represent. The principal stated that he was not able to determine AB’s motivation or his 
understanding of the harm these symbols represent because AB denied being 
responsible for the vandalism.
[213] Second, the applicant is not Jewish and the focus in his own notes is on the threats 
and assaults he experienced. He did not include in his notes the allegation that AB asked 
if he was Jewish or that AB carved a swastika into his binder. This is not to suggest that 
the respondent did not have sufficient information to conclude that anti-Semitism was a 
factor in AB’s conduct toward the applicant. This connection was made clear when the 
applicant’s car was vandalized. However, it was not unreasonable for the respondent to 
believe that the threats and assaults were the most serious and pressing concerns for the 
applicant personally. I do not accept that prioritizing those experiences in the fall of 2015, 
proves that the respondent did not care about or understand the consequences of the 
anti-Semitic aspects of AB’s conduct. 
[214] Third, an important part of the context for assessing the respondents’ actions is 
the relationship between the respondent and the applicant’s parents. The applicant relied
on R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1436, for the argument 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

64
that there is a high burden on a respondent to prove that it could not provide a student 
with meaningful access to educational services because of difficult parents. In that case 
the Tribunal found that a parent’s conduct made her relationship with school staff 
extremely difficult. However, there was no evidence that this difficult relationship 
prevented the school from meeting the student’s educational needs. In that case, the 
adjudicator found that the evidence did not establish a connection between the parent’s 
conduct and the accommodation process for the student. 
[215] Similarly, in L.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1622, the Tribunal 
accepted that the school’s staff found the applicant’s parent difficult and demanding to 
work with but that did not justify the lack of proactive steps taken to ensure that the student 
was accommodated. 
[216] Mr. and Mrs. Armitage were understandably concerned about the applicant’s 
physical and psychological safety. I also acknowledge that their concerns were later 
borne out about how entrenched AB’s beliefs had become and the implications of his 
beliefs for the community at large. However, their perceptions and expectations were 
unreasonable at times and the way they chose to express their concerns created 
significant barriers to communication.
[217] In November 2015, the Armitage’s met with school authorities and were satisfied 
that their concerns had been taken seriously and there was a plan to address the 
applicant’s safety and get AB the help he appeared to need. Two days later their car was 
damaged, and they blamed the principal for AB’s conduct. They criticized the principal for 
allegedly failing to take the anti-Semitic aspects of AB’s conduct seriously despite 
knowing nothing about the steps he had taken since their meeting. Mr. Armitage accused 
the principal, without foundation, of withholding information about AB’s propensity for 
violence and the assaults the applicant had experienced.
[218] Mr. and Mrs. Armitage confronted the principal again after he spoke with the 
applicant in January 2016. They had good reason to be upset about the principal 
approaching the applicant without advising them first, but their response was 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

65
disproportionate to the principal’s actions. They intimidated the principal to the point that 
he had to threaten to call the police to make them stop. They disparaged the principal in
person and in writing to his superintendent, the SRO, and a school Trustee among others. 
Their mindset going into the meeting of January 28, 2016, is evident in the letter Mrs. 
Armitage read to the superintendent on January 26, 2016. During the January meeting 
they accused not only the principal, but also the superintendent, about not caring about 
anti-Semitism. The information they received about the principal’s alleged involvement in 
the removal of the condition did not help the situation, but they persisted in their 
allegations even when they were told that the principal played no part in having the 
condition removed.
[219] The way that Mr. and Mrs. Armitage chose to express their perceptions and 
frustrations undermined the communication necessary for the respondent to fully 
understand the impact of AB’s conduct on the applicant and what he needed in January 
2016 to feel safe at school. Unlike the cases cited by the applicant, this was directly 
relevant to the question whether the respondent took reasonable steps to address the 
applicant’s concerns.
[220] The principal and superintendent were civil and respectful toward Mr. and Mrs. 
Armitage; however, the lack of information shared with the Armitages also contributed to 
the breakdown of the relationship. The respondent did not inquire about how applicant 
was doing, particularly after the incident at his home. The respondent did not 
communicate the outcome of the investigation, or the suspension imposed on AB, the 
consequences of which only became apparent when the condition was lifted. Most 
important, the respondent did not plan to approach the Armitages as a family about the 
removal of the condition or share any information about how AB’s request would be 
determined.
What the Respondent Knew or Ought to Have Known
[221] What the respondent knew or ought to have known about the applicant’s 
experiences with AB is a key factor in determining the reasonableness of the response. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

66
The applicant’s notes of November 27, 2015, combined with the vice-principal’s notes 
from the meeting of November 24, 2015, represent the most reliable record of what was 
conveyed to the respondent by the applicant before the investigation concluded. During 
cross-examination, the applicant agreed that his notes describe most of what happened 
and that they were made over several days, closer to when the incidents occurred when 
his memory would have been fresher. The principal stated that he did not see the 
applicant’s notes; however, they were sent by email directly to the SRO who 
communicated with the vice-principal during the investigation into the allegations against 
AB. 
[222] There was a factual dispute as to whether the applicant disclosed that AB carved 
a swastika into the applicant’s binder. There was also a dispute about whether the 
applicant disclosed that he directly witnessed AB carving the swastikas into the hoist and 
the shop car as opposed to witnessing the carving generally. These allegations are not 
contained in the notes and the evidence did not support a finding that the applicant 
disclosed them. The notes do not reference the allegation that AB asked the applicant if 
he was Jewish, however, the respondent acknowledged that the principal and vice￾principle were aware of this concern at some point during the investigation. 
[223] What is important is that by the time the investigation was concluded, the 
respondent was aware that the applicant had been threated and assaulted by AB, that 
AB was strongly suspected of acts of anti-Semitic vandalism, and that AB had likely 
retaliated against the shop teacher as well as the applicant by carving a swastika and 
other offensive words and symbols into the applicant’s family car. 
[224] The truthfulness of the applicant’s testimony was not in issue. During the
investigation, the applicant was described by his teachers as reliable, and the respondent 
accepted the applicant’s description of his experiences with AB. During the hearing, the 
respondent took issue at times with the reliability of the applicant’s memory, particularly 
with respect to the facts and perceptions he disclosed when he came forward.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

67
[225] Mr. and Mrs. Armitage believed that the applicant disclosed the swastika on the 
binder, the question about him being Jewish and swastikas on the shop car and hoist. 
However, neither the applicant nor his parents took notes of the meeting on November 
24, 2015. By the time of the hearing, the applicant’s allegations had been repeated 
multiple times, by both the applicant and his parents, in various forums, including social 
media and the criminal proceedings involving AB. It would be difficult for them to 
remember, with any certainty, exactly what the applicant disclosed in the meeting of 
November 24, 2015. Mr. and Mrs. Armitage did not attend the meeting between the vice￾principal and the applicant on November 23, 2015, and the applicant acknowledged that 
he did not have a clear recollection of that meeting. 
[226] The applicant’s allegation that AB carved a swastika into his binder was credible. 
The vice-principal also found binders in the shop class that were carved with swastikas 
during her investigation. The applicant’s evidence on whether he disclosed the incident 
involving the binder was inconsistent. He stated that he believed that he disclosed the 
incident involving the binder, but that he was not entirely sure. He then contradicted that 
statement and said he was certain about it and remembered telling them about AB carving 
a swastika into his binder. The evidence was insufficient to find, on a balance of 
probabilities, that the applicant disclosed the incident with his binder to the respondent. 
[227] In the meeting of November 24, 2015, the applicant described AB storming around 
and scratching the shop car. The applicant was near AB while he was scratching the shop 
car and hoist, but he did not testify that he directly witnessed AB scratching the swastikas 
and other offensive symbols. He drew a very reasonable inference that AB was 
responsible because of the behaviour he observed. The applicant stated that he believed 
that he told the vice-principal that he saw a swastika carved onto the shop car. He 
acknowledged that he did not remember if he specifically said that he saw AB carve the 
swastika or the numbers 666, but he did say that he saw AB carve the shop car. With 
respect to the hoist, the applicant stated that his memory was “absolutely clear” that he 
reported the scratching on the hoist. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

68
[228] The evidence was insufficient to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the 
applicant disclosed to the respondent that he directly witnessed AB scratching swastikas 
on the hoist and the shop car. The applicant’s notes mention the hoist and shop car and 
the vice-principal’s notes of November 23, 2015, mention the scratching on the hoist but 
they do not indicate that the applicant witnessed AB specifically carving swastikas. By his 
own evidence, the applicant was near AB and believed AB to be responsible but did not 
actually watch him scratch the swastikas and other offensive symbols. By the time the 
applicant disclosed his experiences, the vice-principal and principal were already aware 
of the swastikas on the shop car and the shop teacher’s truck and had already concluded 
that AB was likely responsible. 
[229] As previously indicated, the vice-principal did not take comprehensive notes of her 
interviews with students, and she was not asked to prepare an investigation report. 
However, the vice-principal’s inability to recall details of those conversations, does not 
undermine her testimony on the key issues. The vice-principle had confronted AB about 
his involvement in the vandalism and I accept that she was actively seeking evidence that 
would confirm her belief. When she examined the shop teacher’s truck, she made a 
comment to the effect of: “now we’ve got him”. I accept that she was unable to locate a 
witness who directly observed AB scratching the offensive words and symbols. I also 
accept that the vice-principal inadvertently mistook the hoist and the car to be the same 
thing. I can also appreciate why the vice-principal was looking for direct evidence given 
AB’s denials, the fact that students were permitted to scratch the shop vehicle as part of 
their assignment and another student was observed scratching the shop car at the same 
time. There was no reason for the vice-principal to ignore direct evidence from a student, 
including the applicant in these circumstances. The principal also stated that although 
they had a strong suspicion that AB was responsible for the vandalism, they did not have 
information confirming this.
[230] The applicant noted that correspondence from AB’s family refers generally to his 
behaviour in shop class but not specifically to the symbols he was suspected of scratching 
on the vehicles. The applicant has drawn an inference from this communication that the 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

69
principal was not telling the truth about his conversations with AB’s family. This is 
speculative, and although it would have been helpful if the principal had kept and 
produced notes of his conversations with AB and his family in this respect, I do not agree 
that the letter establishes that AB and his family were not told by the principal about the 
anti-Semitic conduct. The principal had a clear recollection of discussing those issues 
and described the reactions of AB and each of his parents in those conversations. 
The Response in the Fall of 2015
[231] The steps taken by the respondent to address the applicant’s concerns in the fall 
of 2015 were prompt, effective, proportionate, and otherwise reasonable for the following 
reasons. 
[232] Before the applicant came forward, the respondent was already actively engaged 
in addressing concerns about AB’s behaviour from a health and welfare perspective. In 
addition, the vice-principal was addressing this as a potential disciplinary issue when she 
was searching for a witness who could confirm that AB was responsible for the carvings 
on the shop car. AB met with the guidance counsellor and the vice-principal and was 
offered counselling which the vice-principal understood he eventually agreed to. The 
principal chose not to suspend AB but rather to address the issues directly with AB and 
his parents. There is nothing unreasonable about this approach given the fact that AB 
had no history of this behaviour, and it was not clear what had triggered this change or 
what supports he might need to get back on track. 
[233] When the applicant came forward to speak with his guidance counsellor on 
November 23, 2015, the information was immediately reported to the vice-principal who 
met immediately with the applicant. The vice-principal took the applicant’s concerns so 
seriously that she advised him to tell his parents, or she would do so. The vice-principal 
also took a call from the applicant’s parents the same day and immediately put them in 
touch with the SRO for further information and support. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

70
[234] A meeting was arranged the next day with the applicant, his parents, the principal, 
vice-principal, and the SRO. There was no dispute that the applicant had a full opportunity 
to describe his experiences and that the respondent listened carefully and took his 
concerns seriously. The applicant reported a series of concerns about what he had 
experienced and observed about AB in the shop class. The parties agreed to try and 
resolve the matter without criminal charges and focus on the applicant’s safety and 
support for AB. The principal confirmed later in the day that AB would not be at school 
and that he would advise the applicant’s parents before AB was permitted to return. 
[235] The principal received permission the same day to suspend AB pending 
investigation for possible expulsion. The principal met with AB and his family to explain 
the reasons for the suspension. A VTRA was initiated based on all the allegations known 
to the respondent at the time, including the vandalism. The vice-principal incorporated the 
applicant’s allegations into the investigation that was already underway. Throughout this 
period the vice-principal was interacting with the SRO who was also fully apprised of the 
situation and providing guidance. The SRO met with AB and, according to the vice￾principal, he acknowledged some of the threats and assaults against the applicant but 
denied being responsible for the anti-Semitic vandalism. 
[236] There were no witnesses when the shop teacher’s vehicle was vandalized. With 
respect to the shop car, the vice-principal had a clear recollection that she could not find 
a witness who had seen AB scratching the offensive words and symbols as opposed to 
scratching the shop car generally, including the shop teacher. This distinction might not 
have been important but for the fact that students were permitted to damage the shop car 
for the purpose of making repairs and there was a second student working on the shop 
car at the same time as AB.
[237] In addition, the SRO was actively involved before and after the applicant came 
forward, and the vice-principal was not advised of any evidence from the police 
investigation that would confirm that AB was responsible. It was not established, on a 
balance of probabilities, that the applicant was a direct witness or that the vice-principal 
and the principal failed to recognize this or incorporate this into their findings. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

71
[238] The principal and superintendent were aware of all the allegations against AB 
when the decision was made to apply a significant period of suspension. They were also 
aware that AB had no history of behavioural issues, that he was on track to graduate and 
that concerns had been raised about his well-being for which he had been offered 
counselling. The principal believed that AB was responsible for the vandalism but chose 
to prioritize the threats and assaults against the applicant which AB had apparently 
admitted to the SRO. They chose to base the suspension on the allegations that were 
proven, taking into consideration both the applicant’s credibility and AB’s admissions. 
[239] There was also a police investigation into the vandalism at the school and the 
damage to the applicant’s family car. Charges were laid for the threats and assaults, and 
everyone expected that the condition preventing AB from attending school with the 
applicant would remain in place. It was not unreasonable for the respondent to defer to 
the police investigation rather than attempt to investigate the same incident on its own. 
The SRO met with AB the day that the charges were laid and was communicating with 
the vice principal about her interactions with AB which informed the vice-principal’s 
investigation. The principal and the superintendent stated that the incident at the 
applicant’s home generated concern, but they did not receive information from the police 
implicating AB.
[240] There was no dispute that it was open to the respondent to recommend expulsion, 
but neither the principal nor the superintendent felt that was appropriate in the 
circumstances, and they were concerned that it would not be upheld at an expulsion 
hearing. After the incident at the applicant’s home, there were no reports of any incidents 
with AB or interactions between AB and the applicant. AB served out his suspension at a 
school for suspended students and there were no concerns raised about his behaviour 
from that source. The applicant agreed that he had no concerns about his educational 
environment after AB was charged and the applicant returned to school.
[241] The respondent took prompt, effective and proportionate steps to remedy the 
poisoned environment experienced by the applicant. The applicant’s concerns were taken 
seriously and investigated. The evidence did not establish that the respondent ignored or 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

72
did nothing to address the discriminatory aspects of AB’s conduct or was unaware of the 
abhorrent nature of anti-Semitic symbols like the swastika. On the contrary, the 
respondent was actively searching for witnesses so that it could address this issue from 
a disciplinary perspective. The respondent also engaged AB’s parents and offered 
counselling. The respondent accepted the applicant’s statements about what occurred 
and quickly concluded that AB was responsible for both the threats and assaults and the 
vandalism to the vehicles, including the applicant’s family car. AB was removed from the 
applicant’s environment and received a serious consequence for his conduct toward the 
applicant. The suspension combined with the bail condition provided for a reasonable 
resolution of the applicant’s concerns and the applicant returned to a healthy educational 
environment knowing that he would not encounter AB.
[242] The respondent is not required to demonstrate that the decision to suspend AB 
rather than expel him was correct. I would not second-guess the disciplinary decision 
made by the respondent given what was known or ought to have been known at the time. 
If the bail condition had not been removed, it is more likely than not that the applicant 
would have graduated without further incident. This dispute crystallized in January 2016, 
when the condition preventing AB was removed and the parties were forced to grapple 
with the possible consequences of AB’s return. 
[243] Having carefully considered all the evidence, I find that the actions taken in 
response to the applicant’s circumstances in the fall of 2015, do not give rise to any 
violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code. The Code does not require that the 
response be perfect or ideal or stand up to scrutiny when new information becomes 
available. When the respondent’s actions in the fall of the 2015 are considered in the 
aggregate, based on the full context, the information that was known or ought to have 
been known at the time, the interactions between the parties, and the involvement of AB’s 
parents, the police and youth justice system, the response was prompt, effective and 
proportional in all the circumstances.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

73
The Response in January 2016
[244] The superintendent stated that when the bail condition was removed in January 
2016, there was a need to assess whether it was in everyone’s best interest that AB return
to the same school as the applicant. The superintendent and the principal were aware 
that AB’s absence was a key factor in resolving the applicant’s poisoned educational 
environment. The bail condition was also a factor in the decision not to inform the 
Armitages about the suspension. The principal stated that the Armitages were aware that 
AB would not be attending school and that was primarily what the applicant needed to 
know to feel safe.
[245] Having resolved the poisoned educational environment experienced by the 
applicant, the respondent had a duty to maintain it. This does not mean that the 
respondent was required to decline AB’s request to return to school. However, the 
respondent was required to consider the likely impact on the applicant before a decision 
was made, particularly since the poisoned environment was resolved through AB’s 
continued absence from the school. The timing is an important factor as well. There may 
have been a different outcome in this case if the gap in time between the incident at the 
applicant’s home and AB’s request to return to school was several months rather than a 
few weeks in duration. 
[246] Several steps taken by the respondent were reasonable and intended to be
responsive to the applicant’s concerns. The respondent acknowledged that the change 
in AB’s conditions necessitated a re-evaluation of the situation, and that the applicant 
should have a voice in the process. The respondent conducted a risk assessment with 
an experienced psychologist, worked with AB’s family, identified potential supports for AB 
and enrolled him in a program that would minimize his attendance on school property. In 
addition, the respondent intended to rely on the remaining conditions precluding AB from 
having contact with the applicant and develop a safety plan. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

74
[247] The respondent also had to factor in AB’s right to attend school in his catchment 
area, the fact that he had served his suspension, and the decision by the Court to remove 
the barrier to AB returning to school. 
[248] With respect to the risk assessment, the applicant took issue with the sufficiency 
of the information provided to the assessor, alleging that she was unaware of the anti￾Semitic conduct that AB had been accused of. This was speculative, and unlikely given 
that the report references that AB was suspected of vandalism and that one of the sources 
for this information was the SRO who had been actively involved in all the incidents. It is 
also copied to the person who authored the VTRA report. Dr. Duschner also stated that 
the assessor would have had a copy of that report as part of the background materials 
for her assessment. 
[249] However, I agree with the applicant that it is not as apparent on the face of the 
report, as it was on the earlier VTRA report, how the discriminatory conduct that AB had 
been accused of factored into the conclusions. There was also no evidence that any 
thought was given to having the assessor, or someone with similar expertise, meet with 
the applicant at that time, to learn more about his ongoing fear of AB and how AB’s return 
to school would affect him physically and psychologically. The superintendent recognized 
that the applicant was feeling threatened, had been physically harmed and his mental 
wellbeing had been compromised. Despite that, there was no assessment of the 
applicant’s experiences, his ongoing fears, the supports he would need and the likely 
impact on his ability to perform effectively at school during what was described as a critical 
semester. In addition, the principal acknowledged that he never discussed with AB his 
feelings or intentions toward the applicant. Determining that AB would be compliant with 
a safety plan and the existing bail conditions was only part of assessing whether it was in 
everyone’s best interest that he be permitted to return to school with the applicant.
[250] The decision to pull the applicant from class to share the news about the removal 
of the condition and AB’s request to return, was problematic. The principal had previously 
promised to advise Mr. and Mrs. Armitage before AB was permitted to return and he was 
aware that this news would cause significant distress to the applicant and his family. They 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

75
had a reasonable expectation that the principal would contact them first if there was any 
material change in circumstances. The applicant was barely able to process this 
information in the moment, but he clearly expressed that he was afraid of AB and would 
not feel safe if AB were to return.
[251] The fact that the principal agreed to pull the applicant out of class for a discussion 
about AB returning to school, suggested that he did not fully grasp the seriousness of the 
applicant’s concerns. This was reinforced by his message to the superintendent that the 
applicant’s fear of AB was inconsistent with his initial report and travelling to Cuba. The 
principal under-estimated the applicant’s fear and did not appear to have considered how 
the incident at the applicant’s home and the charges under the YCJA may have 
heightened the applicant’s fear after he first reported. Despite acknowledging that there 
appeared to be a link between AB’s behaviour and anti-Semitism, the principal also stated 
that he thought Mr. and Mrs. Armitage were raising a moral, rather than a personal 
concern. These were unreasonable assumptions, particularly given the acknowledgment
that the applicant had been the victim of hate-motivated violence and that AB had likely 
retaliated against the applicant for reporting him. The principal was sincere in believing 
that if he could work with the applicant and his family, he could alleviate the applicant’s 
fears. However, this was based on a lack of appreciation for the impact of AB’s conduct 
on the applicant. The superintendent was also relying on the principal’s assessment of 
the situation and may not have fully appreciated the applicant’s concerns. 
[252] The principal is not responsible for the conduct of Mr. and Mrs. Armitage when 
they attended school that day. Their response was disproportionate to the mistake the 
principal made in approaching the applicant alone. He had also been asked to do so by 
the superintendent. However, the principal did not explain during the hearing why he did 
not proactively contact Mr. and Mrs. Armitage before or after he spoke with the applicant, 
given the likelihood that they would have questions and serious concerns about the 
change in circumstances. The principal also agreed that it would have been helpful for 
him to follow up with the Armitages in writing to provide further information. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

76
[253] There was a lack of evidence generally about how the respondent applied the 
information it gathered in the fall of 2015 to assess the likely impact on the applicant of 
AB returning to school, even part of the time. This would include incidents that were not 
the subject of discipline, but likely to have had a significant impact on the applicant’s 
sense of safety at school. The superintendent stated that he was considering what was 
in everyone’s best interest which is a different standard than the one that would be applied 
to disciplinary decisions. The evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate how the acts of 
vandalism, and the incident at the applicant’s home, which was the second act of 
retaliation that the respondent was aware of, were factored into the decision to permit AB 
to return to school.
[254] There was also a lack of evidence of about the available options for AB and how 
those options were weighed against the likely impact on the applicant if AB returned. The 
principal testified about the reasons for returning AB to school, including the outcome of 
the risk assessment and the fact that AB’s family was cooperating, but there was no 
evidence about what other options were considered and why they were rejected in favour 
of allowing AB to return. For example, the respondent did not explain any steps taken to 
identify an appropriate school to transfer AB, where he could remain in the house building 
program but attend classes infrequently at another location. In addition, the respondent 
did not explain whether any failure on AB’s part to engage in the counselling 
recommended by the risk assessment would impact the decision to permit him to return.
[255] While I have found that the applicant’s parents put up significant barriers to 
communication, the evidence did not explain how the respondent incorporated what was 
already known about the applicant’s experiences with AB, into the decision to permit AB 
to return to school. The evidence also did not explain why the applicant and his parents 
were not invited to a meeting with the principal and the superintendent where the impact 
on the applicant could be discussed before the decision was made.
[256] Going into the meeting of January 28, 2016, Mr. and Mrs. Armitage were not 
prepared to collaborate with the respondent on a safety plan. They established an 
impossible threshold for the respondent to meet which was to guarantee the applicant’s 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

77
safety and they continued to accuse the respondent of doing “nothing” to address AB’s 
attitudes. Dr. Duschner stated, and the evidence supports her observation, that Mr. and 
Mrs. Armitage would not agree to any plan that would involve AB returning to the 
applicant’s school. 
[257] The applicant provided information to the respondent during the meeting that 
would have been relevant to the decision to permit AB to return to school. The applicant 
was able to explain his ongoing fear of AB, how the threats and assaults were connected 
to the discriminatory conduct AB engaged in, and what it would be like for him to be 
attending school and worrying about encountering AB. Dr. Duschner stated that as the 
meeting progressed, she wondered about the connection the applicant and his family 
were making between the applicant’s experiences and anti-Semitism and she was 
interested in understanding more about the source of the applicant’s fear. This was the 
first time the superintendent had met with the applicant, and he also had a better 
understanding of the applicant’s concerns after the meeting took place. Most important, 
the meeting revealed that it was likely unrealistic to expect the applicant to adjust and 
overcome his very rational fear of AB, with only one semester of school left ahead of him. 
[258] It is possible that the respondent would have come to the same conclusion to 
permit AB to return even if the applicant had met with a school board psychologist, or 
otherwise conveyed his feelings, or the decision to permit AB to return had been delayed 
until after a meeting with the Armitages. It is also possible that these steps would not have 
changed how Mr. and Mrs. Armitage felt about the situation and their perceptions of the 
school officials. However, these steps (or others like them), which were important part of 
maintaining the resolution of the applicant’s educational environment, were not taken and 
that contributed to the applicant’s decision to withdraw from in-person learning. 
[259] Given all that the respondent knew about the applicant’s experiences, including 
the incident at the applicant’s home, it was unreasonable to question the applicant’s 
ongoing fear of AB without further assessment. Instead of assessing the applicant’s fear 
and the emotional impact of the intimidation he experienced, factoring in his age and 
vulnerability, the respondent assumed that the applicant could be reassured by a risk 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

78
assessment and a safety plan that would limit his interactions with AB. The failure to 
assess the impact of AB’s return on the applicant created a barrier to the applicant 
accessing a meaningful part of his educational experience which constitutes a breach of 
the Code. For that, the applicant is entitled to a remedy, but one which recognizes the 
significant efforts of the respondent to mitigate the impact of his decision to complete his 
final semester online.
Mitigation
[260] The respondent took significant steps to mitigate the impact of the applicant’s 
decision to withdraw from in-person learning. He was offered but declined the opportunity 
to attend classes at another school. The principal provided the applicant with full support 
to complete his final semester online and asked the guidance counsellor to stay in touch 
with the applicant for further support. An arrangement was made for exams to take place 
off site, an offer was made to pay for the applicant’s travel costs, arrangements were 
made for graduation pictures, and the applicant was invited to attend his graduation.
[261] The applicant attended several events at school, including his prom, but refused 
to attend his graduation. He stated that he chose events that AB would likely not be 
interested in. His parents attended some but not all the events. The applicant stated that 
he did not attend his graduation because Mrs. Armitage told him that AB might be in 
attendance. The respondent stated that it was prepared to work out a plan to ensure the 
applicant’s safety at his graduation. The evidence established the applicant declined 
without attempting to work with the respondent on a plan for his safety.
[262] Finally, and importantly, the respondent arranged for the applicant to receive 
support from Dr. Duschner, which Mrs. Armitage initially accepted and then declined for 
reasons that were not justified. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

79
Systemic Issues
[263] The applicant argued that he could not attend school with AB because the 
respondent had not demonstrated that AB’s attitudes had changed, and the poisoned 
environment he experienced in the fall of 2015 had not been fully addressed. The 
applicant argued that the respondent should have addressed AB’s conduct in a more 
systemic way by alerting parents, holding a school-wide information session, publicly 
denouncing the conduct AB was suspected of and providing further education to students 
and teachers about anti-Semitism. I disagree that this kind of systemic approach was 
necessary or proportionate in the circumstances.
[264] The applicant relied on Jubran, to establish what is required of a school board in 
the context of a poisoned school environment brought about by harassment based on a 
prohibited ground. Mr. Jubran was repeatedly subjected to insults and harassment of a 
homophobic nature during the five years he spent in high school. He was repeatedly 
taunted with homophobic epithets and was physically assaulted, including being spat 
upon, kicked, and punched by other students. The verbal and physical attacks on him 
took place in public in front of other students and at least one teacher. When his abusers 
were caught and disciplined, other students would take over the personal attacks, strongly 
suggesting a culture of intolerance toward LGBTQ2+ people in the school. Dozens of 
incidents were reported and investigated during Mr. Jubran’s five years in high school. 
Mr. Jubran was so frustrated that he lost control and hit another student resulting in a 
suspension and a criminal charge against him. I can fully appreciate why a systemic 
response was necessary in the circumstances of Mr. Jubran’s case.
[265] By contrast, in this case, AB’s conduct took place over a short period of time and 
was confined to the shop class until he retaliated against the applicant at his home. The 
respondent took steps to remove the offensive symbols and to remove AB from the school 
pending an investigation. There was an unfortunate delay in removing the swastika from 
the hoist, but the delay was inadvertent. The applicant did not report to either his parents 
or to school authorities that his school environment remained poisoned by the presence 
of anti-Semitic graffiti.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

80
[266] All the information available to the respondent in the fall of 2015, suggested that 
this was a problem with an individual student, not a systemic problem in the school. The 
students and teachers who were aware of AB’s conduct considered him an outlier and 
someone in need of help. There was no evidence that any other student was inspired by 
AB’s actions to engage in similar conduct toward the applicant or generally in the school 
environment. Students that the vice-principal spoke with suspected AB and denounced 
his behaviour. The removal of AB eliminated his behaviour toward the applicant at school, 
and the criminal charges and conditions eliminated AB’s behaviour toward the applicant 
outside of school. 
[267] Information was circulating on social media and in the school community about the 
applicant’s experiences and the acts of vandalism at the school. The principal agreed that 
it was an option to publicly denounce the conduct. At the time, based on the information 
he had, this was isolated to one person and a decision was made not to give these 
incidents more exposure or give other people ideas. There is nothing unreasonable about 
this approach and it does not support the applicant’s allegation that the respondent did 
nothing to address the hate-motivated aspects of AB’s conduct. There was no evidence 
from which to infer that AB’s conduct or the respondent’s actions in response, either arose 
from, or created, a systemic problem with anti-Semitism in the school.
REMEDY
[268] The Tribunal’s remedial powers are set out in section 45.2 of the Code:
On an application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more of
the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the application
has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the application:
1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay
monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for
loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury 
to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make
restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through 
monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement,
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

81
including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
3. An order directing any party to the application to do anything that,
in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party out to do to promote
compliance with this Act.
[269] The Tribunal’s compensatory order should reflect both the objective seriousness
of the conduct and the impact on the applicant individually. See Arunachalam v. Best Buy
Canada, 2010 HRTO 1880. In ADGA Group Consultants Inc. v. Lane, 2008 CanLII 39605 
(ON SCDC), the Divisional Court confirmed at paragraph 154:
Among the factors that Tribunals should consider when awarding general 
damages are humiliation; hurt feelings; the loss of self- respect, dignity and 
confidence by the complainant; the experience of victimization; the
vulnerability of the complainant and the seriousness of the offensive 
treatment.
[270] It is important to emphasize that any compensation owed for injury to dignity, 
feelings, and self-respect, must be related to the findings against the respondent, namely, 
the failure to fully assess the impact on the applicant of returning AB to school. The 
compensation awarded here is not for the injuries that are attributable to AB’s conduct 
toward the applicant. It is also well-established that the Tribunal’s remedial powers are 
not punitive in nature. See McCreary v. 407994 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 2369. 
[271] The applicant requested compensation in the amount of $100,000.00 and public 
interest remedies that would require the respondent to work with an expert on 
discriminatory harassment in education, ensure that its policies and procedures comply 
with the Code, and provide training on poisoned environments. The applicant reduced his 
request for monetary damages during final submissions to $50,000.00. This was 
challenging for the respondent who prepared to defend a claim for twice that amount, and
it is not proportional to allegations against the respondent. 
[272] The applicant stated that he lost his sense of being carefree because of his 
experiences at school. The applicant stated that he felt robbed of the ability to experience 
time with friends and the extracurricular activities he would have experienced if he had 
been at school. Learning from home was particularly hard on the applicant because he 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

82
was alone in the country without access to a vehicle which made it more difficult for him 
to engage with his friends. The applicant stated that he was angry that the respondent 
had not stood up for him, especially given the fact that he had been afraid to come forward 
in the first place. 
[273] The applicant stated that he persevered with his studies and graduated but missed 
out on his first choice of a university by .4% which he attributed the respondent’s failure 
to support him and take his safety concerns seriously. The applicant stated that he was 
happily enrolled in another university, but the consequences of the case have followed 
him. 
[274] The applicant was seventeen at the time of these events, vulnerable, intimidated 
by acts of hate directed at him and occurring around him in his educational environment. 
He had just returned to school and was recovering from his experiences in the fall when 
his life was destabilized again by the news that AB was seeking to return. The 
respondent’s decision to permit AB to return to school without first assessing the likely 
impact on the applicant exacerbated the applicant’s fears and undermined his dignity, 
feelings, and self-respect. 
[275] The respondent fully supported the applicant’s transition to online learning. He did 
well in his online studies, and he had support if he needed it. The applicant believes that 
he missed out on his first choice of university because of the respondent’s conduct, but 
the evidence was insufficient to establish that connection. The applicant made choices to 
take risks and attended certain events at the school, including his prom, without providing 
notice and without any assurance that AB would not be there. His decision not to engage 
with the respondent on a plan to attend the graduation ceremony with his peers, where 
his parents would be in attendance, is not the fault of the respondent. In addition, the 
principal’s explanation for not inviting the applicant back to school when it became 
apparent that AB was no longer attending school was reasonable given that the applicant 
was doing well, and principal did not receive confirmation of AB’s absence until May 2016. 
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

83
[276] Having considered all these factors and the unique circumstances of this case,
and the fact that there were no comparable cases to provide guidance on remedy, I have 
concluded that an award in the lower range of Tribunal awards in the amount of $4,500.00 
is appropriate. This award recognizes the injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect that 
the applicant experienced because of the respondent’s decision to return AB to school 
without fulling assessing the impact on him. It also recognizes the barriers the respondent 
encountered in working with the applicant and his parents and the respondent’s efforts to 
mitigate in the impact of the applicant’s decision to finish his year online. 
Systemic Remedies
[277] This decision arises from the adjudication of specific allegations against the 
respondent by an individual applicant. It is true that individual allegations can arise from 
systemic issues and remedying a poisoned environment may call for a systemic 
response. However, I have previously described how this case is distinct from Jubran and 
the public interest remedies that were required to remedy the long-standing poisoned 
environment in that case. Accordingly, I decline to order the public-interest remedies 
requested by the applicant. 
ORDER
[278] For these reasons, I make the following orders:
a. The respondent will pay the applicant the sum of $4,500.00 in monetary
compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
b. Pre-judgement interest from the date of the Application to the date of 
this decision calculated at a rate of .8 % per annum in accordance with 
the Courts of Justice Act.
c. Post-judgment interest from the date of this decision calculated at a rate 
of 2% per annum in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 

84
[279] I would like to extend my thanks to counsel. This was a complex case with many 
unique features, and I appreciate the thoroughness and sensitivity with which counsel 
addressed the issues in dispute.
Dated at Toronto, this 28
th day of February, 2022.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Leslie Reaume
I resigned my appointment as a Vice-chair of the Tribunal effective July 27, 2019. I 
agreed to remain seized of this matter pursuant to section 4.3 of the Statutory Powers 
Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22.
2022 HRTO 252 (CanLII) 