U of T and Dr. Kin-Yip Chun settles race based human rights complaint through private mediation

by S. Pieters, B.A.

Former superior court judge Hon. George W. Adams was able to do what the Ontario Human Rights Commission failed to do, that is, mediate and reach a mutually agreeable settlement in reference to the six years of human rights and civil litigation battles over Dr. Chun's assertions of racial discrimination by the university in employment.

On September 08, 2000, the University of Toronto and Dr. Chun released a joint statement which states:

The University of Toronto and Dr. Kin-Yip Chun have reached an agreement which will see Dr. Chun return to his research in seismology at the University of Toronto. He will hold the title of "Research Scientist" and "Associate Professor" (non-tenure-stream).

Both parties express regret at the harm done to all those involved in the protracted dispute. They are pleased that the dispute has been resolved, including all outstanding litigation, and that a solution has been found that is consistent with the University policies.

Dr. Chun will have the title of research scientist and associate professor (non-tenure stream) until December 2004, when he will face a review. If he passes this review, his position will continue until retirement. In the next five years, Dr. Chun must write four papers that are published or accepted for publication and secure a peer-review research grant.

As well, Dr. Chun was offered $100,000 in compensation, a salary retroactive to July 1, 2000, an estimated $150,000 for his legal fees, and the University will be bearing the start-up cost of $260,000 for setting up Dr. Chun's lab for his research projects.

This settlement followed the July 24, 2000, decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission where it found that Dr. Chun's complaint was not substantiated.

While we are pleased that Dr. Chun and the University of Toronto were able to resolve this dispute, several unresolved issues remains including: the length of time taken to resolve this complaint; the recalcitrance of the University of Toronto; the past, present and continuing reprisal actions taken by the University of Toronto officials against key supporters of Dr. Chun including Officials of the Governing Council engaging in illicit, political maneuvering, which removed and continues to keep students, and alumni interested in social justice, equality rights and human rights off key governing council Boards and Committees, such as the Executive Committee, Planning and Budget Committee, University Affairs Board, and Academic Board; the University of Toronto past , present and continuing attempta to silence social justice, equality rights and human rights defenders on campus by threatening them with charges under the Code of Conduct. These are some of the unresolved issues which may have to be dealt with in one forum or another.

In reference to the Ontario Human Rights Commission its conduct in this case, as well as other race based cases, cannot escape scrutiny. The Commission's handling of this case was disgraceful and inconsistent with the public policy as enumerated in the preamble of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

How the Commission has dealt with Dr. Chun's complaint against U. Of T.

In December 1992, Dr. Chun submitted his written complaint against the U of T to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC).

Since then the OHRC appointed a succession of investigators to look into the case, the last being Mr. Roger Palacio, who was appointed in late 1998.

In December 1998, in a letter to Senator Vivienne Poy the Commission stated that it expected to have all investigations into long delayed cases, including Chun's, completed by end of March 1999.

In July 1999, Mr. Palacio stated that he planned to have the investigation concluded by August but was still waiting to have some three hundred documents turned over to him by the Respondent U of T.

On 1 February 2000, having carefully reviewed thousands of pages of documents, the OHRC released the long-awaited report, stating among others:

1. Records pertaining to three of the four tenure-stream competitions (1987, 1988, 1991-92, 1992) were not available to the investigator: the U of T had shredded them.
2. The evidence indicates that the competition process allows for a wide latitude of subjectivity at various stages including the culling of applications, short-listing and choice of the successful seminar presentation.
3. The evidence indicates that the Complainant was subjected to reprisal for attempting to enforce his rights under the Code.
4. The evidence presents a prima facie case of poisoned work environment.
5. The power imbalance inherent in the dynamic of an "old-boys" network effectively screens out racial minority persons, as well as other minority persons who are unable to tape into this network.
6. In conclusion, the totality of the evidence corroborates the Complainant's allegations on a prima facie basis that his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin were factors in his failure to obtain an academic appointment and that he was subjected to a series of reprisals culminating in his dismissal.
By February 16, 2000, the Commission had terminated the involvement in the Dr. Chun case of all those who had played a key role in the investigation and subsequent writing of the February 1, 2000 report. On March 30, the U of T attached 200 pages of documents to its response to the OHRC Report. These documents contained serious factual fabrications. The submission was made despite a February 1, 2000 letter sent to Chun's lawyer from the Commission. "Please take notice that any appendices or attachments to your submission will not be placed before the Commission when it renders its decision," the letter reads.

On July 24 the OHRC announced its decision not to refer the matter to a board of inquiry, citing reasons all of which diametrically contradicted its own report's findings. In a CBC radio interview in late July, Chief Commissioner Keith Norton conceded that in rendering the decision, the commissioners had taken into account the U of T's submission.

Significantly, the decision to reverse the OHRC's position in the Chun case was arrived at without the presence of any key staff members, including the Coordinator of the Investigation Branch, who had investigated and recommended that the case be referred to a board of inquiry.

Dr. Chun's lawyer had filed an application for reconsideration citing more than a dozen procedural failures on the part of the Commission leading up to July 24, and non-disclosure of at least one incident of conflict of interest, which had seriously prejudiced the outcome of the decision. (Source: Coalition to Reform the Ontario Human Rights Commission)

Given the disgraceful conduct of the Commission, we suggest the following:
  • Apologize to racial minority communities for the failure to effectively, efficiently, and purposely interpret and enforce the Code and undermining our dignity and worth.
  • Create a Race Relations division as contemplated by section 28 of the Code "to perform any of the functions of the Commission under clause 29 (f), (g) or (h) relating to race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin or creed that are referred to it by the Commission and any other function referred to it by the Commission."
  • Apologize for the harm done to racial minorities through informed inaction and complacency towards employers and services providors who are racist, acknowledging that such inaction has worked against the public interest, undermined the enforcement of human rights in Ontario and renders the importance of human rights and equality rights in our society a mere illusion.
  • Implement the 1994 Guidelines and Recommendations For Dealing with Race Cases from Intake to Board of Inquiry, and make it publicly accessible on the Commission's website as is the case with all other Commission's policies and guidelines.
  • Agree that no race based cases that raises personal, systemic and institutionalized racism would "not be dealt" with under section 34 of the Code.
  • Strenghten the Commission and give it the tools to effectively combat personal, systemic and institutionalized racism which is virulent in our society.
    • As I have noted in a previous article entitled, Ontario Human Rights Commission decision to dismiss the case of Dr. Kip Yip Chun does an injustice to race based human rights litigants:
    The Commission by its actions and deeds have lost institutional credibility as an institution willing and able to deal with the issues that affect historic disadvantaged persons in Ontario.

    Keith Norton and the Commissioners at the Ontario Human Rights Commission should do the right thing and resign.

    The struggles continues to reform the Ontario Human Rights Commission with the recently formed "Coalition to Reform the Ontario Human Rights Commission." For further information on this group including meeting times, date and venue, please contact:

    Rick Sin, M.S.W.
    Executive Director
    Chinese Canadian National Council Toronto Chapter
    507 - 302 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, ON M5T 2E7
    Tel: (416) 596-0833 Fax: (416) 596-7248
    Email: toronto@ccnc.ca

    Comments to selwyn.pieters@utoronto.ca

    This page was Created on September 08, 2000.

    © 2000 All rights reserved.

    || President Prichard's Report of the Chun Affair to The University of Toronto's Governing Council, Academic Board, September 4, 1997 | President Prichard's Report of the Chun Affair to The University of Toronto's Governing Council, Academic Board, October 09, 1997 | Ontario Human Rights Commission Section 36 Case Analysis Report in Dr. Chun's Human Rights Complaint | Ontario Human Rights Commission homepage | Dysfunction at the Ontario Human Rights Commission homepage | International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Racial Minorities, particularly Blacks, in Ontario Have nothing to Cheer about or Celebrate | Home Page | Sign Guestbook ||