Court File No.: T-526-15 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: PAUL RITCHIE, Applicant -and~ MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, CANADIAN FORCES AND THE ATTORNEY, GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW Paul D. Ritchie Melissa Chan Department Of Justice Suite 1400 — Duke Tower 5251 Duke Street Halifax, NS_B3J 1P3 Applicant Counsel for the RespondentPART I-STATEMENT OF FACTS 1, Canadian Human Rights Act - Section 10, Disctiminatory Policy or Practice 10. Itis a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization (a) to establish o pursue a policy or practice, or (6) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment, that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination. 2. Canadian Human Rights Act ~ Section 14, Harassment 14, (1) Itis a discriminatory pra e, (2) in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public, (b) in the provision of commercial premises or residential accommodation, or (c) in matters related to employment, to harass an individual on a prohibited ground of dis PART II- POINTS IN ISSUE 3. To summarize the Issues: (1) Natural Justice: the Commission’s investigation was not thorough; (2) Natural Justice: the investigation report was flawed well outside the bounds of reasonableness; (3) Procedural Fairness: the investigation report was not accurate and contained major errors that were biased to favor the respondent of the complaint; (4) Procedural Faimess: the opportunity to respond to the investigation report was limited to 10 pages, hence, I could not make full representation, only limited representation; (5) Procedural Fairness: I did not receive the respondents submission and cross submission following the release of the investigation report; therefore I was not afforded the ‘opportunity to submit a cross submission; QI) ©(©) Procedural Fairness: the Commission in the decision rendering process relied upon a biased one page summary of the investigation report and adopted the recommendation from that summary to bypass their administrative responsibility to be informed of all the circumstances of my complaint; the complaint being that the investigation report was flawed and irreparable; (7) Neutrality: the scope of investigation focused on allegations I never made in my human rights complaint with conclusions that favored the respondent; (8) Neutrality: selected witnesses relied upon by the investigator provided opinions, recollections and false statements; their r¢ ility was frail but their statements were taken as fact; evidence and policies were dismissed as relevant; (9) Transparency: there are claims of evidence existing written in the investigation report, yet, no references are made available to support the factual existence of said evidence; and (10) Jurisdiction: the investigator insisted I divulge the amount of monetary compensation 1Lwas seeking from my complaint on the premise that this specific question was a new directive from the Commission that required an answer. Part II - SUBMISSIONS. kground 4, Note: The Canadian Forces members I refer to in this document will be associated with their ranks and positions as I knew them, with no disrespect to their current ranks and positions. 5. The most significant document I provided to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) to support my human rights complaint is dated 31 January 2014. This document consisted of 15 Chapters (referred to as Paragraphs 1 — 15), most chapters supported with documented references. This document is located in Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 1 — 302. The cover page to thi document is located in Vol 5, CHRC 117/ 1. In this document, I stated explicitly what the main focus of my human rights complaint would entail: “The differential treatment I endured at random times during the summer of 2010 at CFNES OT Division is minor compared to the outright discrimination that occurred during and after NCSEAC Serial 1001 and I submit this is the main focus of my CHRC complaint.” See Vol 6, CHRC 118/90, para 8(). 6. My human rights complaint contained two distinct elements of relevancy as a relationship to the timeline of my complaint; minor and major. Agr7. Any event or happening I discussed in my complaint taking place prior to the Naval Combat Systems Engineering Application Course (NCSEAC) Serial 1001 in September 2010, I considered it having minor relevancy in terms of the focus of my human rights complaint. The discriminatory manner in which I was treated by the training staff at Canadian Forces Naval Engineering School (CFNES) Officer Training (OT) Division within this timeline did not delay my training; it was a medical issue that delayed my training. 8. Any event or happening I discussed in my human rights complaint taking place during and after NCSEAC Serial 1001 in September 2010, I considered it hay 1g major relevaney in terms of the focus of my human rights complaint, echoing the focus of the Grievance I filed with the Canadian Forces. The discriminatory manner in which I was treated by the training staff at CFNES OT Division within this timeline directly ended my career as a Naval Combat Systems Engineer (NCS Eng) and terminated my employment with the Canadian Forces. 9. hope it is understood that as I use the terms major and minor within my statements, this descriptor is used to define the relevancy of an event to the timeline of my complaint; it either affected my overall career in the Canadian Forces or it did not. My position as it relates to discrimination itself: all discriminatory acts are equally abhorrent, inexcusable and anyone who would label a discriminatory act as “not very serious” (Vol 7, CHRC 226 / 21, para 196) only further contributes to the continuance of discrimination within our Canadian society. 10. The 31 January 2014 document I provided to the CHRC was formatted specifically for CHRC Investigator Audrey Renault based on our discussions on how I should present her with the information related to my human rights complaint (29 November 2013, Vol 5, CHRC 111 /1 and 06 January 2014, Vol $, CHRC 115 / 1). On Audrey Renault’s assurance that I would have ‘opportunity to raise other points of discussion throughout the course of the investigation, I limited this document to 302 pages. I acknowledged this assurance in the cover page of my document (Vol 5, CHRC 117/ 1) and again in my final statement (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 302). IL, On 22 January 2014, Audrey Renault provided one other assurance to solidify the adherence of procedural fairness in the investigation she would conduct. ‘The assurance given was to address my specific concern on the issue of the respondent submitting further fraudulent documents and/or information during the course of the investigation. Audrey Renault writes: Qaie“Lexplained that any evidence provided by a party in the course of the investigation that is new and key would be discussed with the other party.” See Vol 5, CHRC 116 / | 12, The assurances Audrey Renault discussed with me were not adhered to with the new appointment of Helen Gillespie as the investigator to my human rights complaint. Helen Gillespie did not conduct her investigation based on the facts that were already established in prior administrative processes. She ignored documented facts and inverted them to allegations for her to investigate; thus, changing the nature and scope of the investigation she would conduct. Under this circumstance, she renounced all aspects of procedural fairness to investigate my human rights complaint neutral to her position, One such example: “The complainant alleges that the respondent failed him on an EM/ Antenna NCSEAC Serial 1001 Course that he started in September 2010. Further, the complainant says that he was the only person to fail the course.” See Vol 7, CHRC 226 / 13, para 102. 13. That statement is fact as written, but excludes my factual concern regarding the failure on this course. This manufactured failure is addressed in the Canadian Forces Grievance decision: “Accordingly, have concluded that had the marking scheme handed out at the beginning of the course been used for your evaluation then you would have passed the course with a mark of 63.74%, Furthermore, I have concluded that neither the supplemental exam, which prompted the TRB, nor the results of the TRB, which ceased your training, would have been required, had this been the case." See 03 April 2011 Initial Authority Decision, Vol 3, CHRC 061 / 9, para 10. 14. For reference, the Canadian Forces Grievance documents are located at: (1) 15 September 2011 Grievance Document, Vol 3, CHRC 007 / 146 - 261 (2) 29 March 2012 Grievance Package #1, Vol 6, CHRC 118/91 — 107 (3) 31 May 2012, Grievance Investigation Response #1, Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 274-290 (4) 01 July 2012 Grievance Package #2, Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 108 ~ 124 () 10 August 2012, Grievance Investigation Response #2, Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 291 — 299 (© 03 April 2013, Initial Authority Final Decision, Vol 5, CHRC 061 / 6 ~ 16 (1) Grievance Investigation Documents, Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 142 ~ 196 (8) 25 July 2012, Email from LCdr McIntyre, Vol 5, CHRC 047/ 8-9 (9) 29 January 2015, CF Cross Submission To CHRC, Vol 7, CHRC 244 / 1-2 15. The following statements are to solidify that natural justice was not afforded to me from the Commission's investigation process. ‘The Commission’s duty to ensure faimess when it aaexercised its statutory rights to investigate my human rights complaint was lost in translation with the submis jon of Helen Gillespie’s flawed investigation report. ‘The Investigation: 29 September 2014 — 04 December 2014 16. On 19 September 2014, contractor Helen Gillespie, located on the West Coast, was assigned to the role of a Human Rights Investigator and re-designated to conduct the investigation ‘on my human rights complaint (Vol 6, CHRC 123 / 1). Helen Gillespie commenced the investigation on 29 September 2014 (Vol 6, CHRC 128 / 1). 17. Throughout the course of the investigation between the dates of 29 September 2014 and 04 December 2014, Helen Gillespie contacted me by phone for a series of interviews. These interviews took place on the dates of 16 October 2014 (Vol 6, CHRC 137 / 1 —5), 29 October 2014 (Vol 6, CHRC 154 / 1 — 2), 20 November 2014 (Vol 7, CHRC 196 / 1) and 24 November 2014 (Vol 7, CHRC 203 / 1). 18. My interviews with Helen Gillespie were not conducted in the professional manner I had expected from a Canadian Human Rights Investigator. During the first interview on 16 October 2014, Helen Gillespie asked me irregular questions with the majority of them having minor relevance to my human rights complaint. Her questions came to me in two forms; questions in which the answers were already provided in my submissions, or questions that just outright did not make sense to the facts that were provided to her. I was constantly having to correct her throughout the interview and eventually I drew attention to this. Helen Gillespie eventually conceded in that interview that she had only skimmed over my human rights complaint prior to this interview. She captured some of my concern in her notes: “Comment - I am very concerned with this process - you have my file now and are investigating. The other investigator is more familiar with my file and Tam not happy. It has been a long process.” See Vol 6, CHRC 137 / 4, para 8 19, In the second interview I had with Helen Gillespie on 29 October 2014, she had no new relevant questions to ask in regards to my human rights complaint. At the start, the initial narrow focus of her interview with me was to challenge the authenticity, completeness and relevancy of the divisional notes I provided to her as reference 2.6 in my 31 January 2014 document (Vol 6, aQayoCHRC 118/25 51). She openly admitted to me that she tried to request the divisional notes of the 12 students who were on the Naval Combat Systems Engineering Application Course with me and the Canadian Forces denied her that information; hence, she had no comparable information 20. Her questions regarding the divisional notes could have been answered by policy CFNES Standard Operations (SO) 204, Divisional System and policy CFNES Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) 9.204, Divisi Exhibits 2M and 2P. Instead of consulting these policies, Helen Gillespie required that I repeat nal System. These policies are provided in my Affidavit as the information regarding my divisional notes that I had previously provided to her. 21. As the second interviewed progressed, Helen Gillespie demonstrated her failure to understand the basic concept that harassment is a discriminatory practice, as stated in the Canadian Human Rights Act, Section 14. The following statement is captured from her interview notes: “What policy or practice are you referencing - with regard to Section 10? I was referencing their policy on harassment, ethics, equality. Investigator explained that these policies are considered to be inherent in the investigation, unless there is a specific policy. Esaysne.” See Vol 6, CHRC 154/2, pata 2. 22. I strike out the last part of that statement because it does not reflect truthfully what I said to Helen Gillespie in that conversation. What she would not acknowledge in that conversation was that I had already provided her a statement to the discriminatory practices the training staff at CENES OT Division utilized to end my career with the Canadian Forces. The information I conveyed in my human rights complaint, regarding section 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, states: “No other trainee: had authority over me to abuse; could change a final mark from a pass to a fail; could alter, forge or destroy a divisional document; could write up fake divisional notes in my training file; could change CF or divisional policy on the fly to pretend policy was adhered to. It was the training staff that made CFNES OT Division the unwelcoming environment it was for me because Lam gay.” See Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 87-8, para 7(d). 23. That statement is a narrative of the many unwelcomed discriminatory acts, inclusive to harassment, I endured in the Canadian Forces, all associated to the main focus of my human rights complaint, Helen Gillespie's disrespect to my concerns under Section 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is noted in her report: Was)“The complainant alleged there was a policy complaint under Section 10 in his complaint form, but indicated that other than the complaints as set out, there was no allegation regarding a discriminatory practice or policy. Therefore, the policy complaint under Section 10 is not investigated.” See Vol 7, CHRC 226 / 2, para 3. 24, The information the Canadian Forces provided to Helen Gillespie, but she ignored, aligns with my statement of what I considered to be a discriminatory practice of harassment: ‘National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces — Harassment Questions and Answers. 2: What constitutes harassment? The following normally constitutes harassment when repeated or on one single severe event: Setting the person up for failure.” See Vol 6, CHRC 139 / 1, Question 2. 25. During my second interview with Helen Gillespie, I questioned her repetitive return to less relevant events that occurred prior to the Naval Combat Systems Engineering Application Course and her failure to acknowledge the major concerns that I discussed in my human rights complaint. Her response is captured in her notes: While PAT in 2011 - harassment? Specific? Why didn't he file complaints? - previously you said it was discriminatory acts, not harassment.” See Vol 6, CHRC 154 /2, para 5. 26. Whether it was personal bias or just Helen Gillespie's unfamiliarity to the Canadian Human Rights Act, she confirms in that one statement her own personal view that my allegations of harassment in my human rights complaint did not require significant discussion or review because they did not align with her understanding of discrimination, 27. — Lended my second interview with Helen Gillespie discussing the details of how on 07 February 2011 my training as a NCS Eng was terminated. Helen Gillespie poorly captured my conversation with her on that topic within her notes, but the essence of the events I described to her of that day were that of harassment and differential treatment. The relevancy of that conversation to my human rights complaint was based on one fact; no one in my division had lawful authority to terminate my training based on the 02 February 2011 Training Review Board recommendation (Vol 3, CHRC 007 / 151-156, para 16). Still, my career was ended on that day. 28. The event I described to Helen Gillespie with regards to being removed from my training on 07 January-2011 was nothing more than a simple fact check. Lt(N) Kyle Sexton, CFNES OT FERS nea,Divisional Officer, confirms in the divisional note he dated 09 February 2011 that I was removed from NCSEAC Serial 1001 (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 33). 29. Policy CENES Standard Operations 415, CFNES Training Framework, para 14 (Affidavit, Exhibit 2N) explicitly states, “Training Staff's not authorized to remove students from course with the exception of the Damage Control (DC) Div Car." 30. Pk 20) explicitly states, “TRB's with career changing implications will continue to be staffed to the Director Maritime Training and Education (DMTE) IAW REF A." -y CFNES Standard Operations, Training Review Boards, para 8 (Affidavit, Exhibit 31. DMTE in Ottawa was the TRB recommendation. This is easily obtainable information to confirm, as DMTE was the final | authority to approve or disapprove the 02 February 2011 authority on the recommendations made by the 11 June 2009 Training Review Board (Vol 4, CHRC 008 / 2). 32. The difference between the I June 2009 TRB and 02 February 2011 TRB was that DMTE was not notified of the 02 February 2011 TRB; this allowing CFNES Commandant (Cmdt) Commander (Cdr) L. Carosielli to unlawfully sign off as the approving authority for the 02 February 2011 TRB on 20 May 2011 (Vol 3, CHRC 006 / 52). Previously Car Carosielli within his authoritative right provided his concurrence to the 02 February 2011 TRB recommendations on 21 March 2011 (Vol 3, CHRC 006/53). To who his concurrence was addressed to is unknown, 33. Helen Gillespie may have taken notes in my second interview pertaining to the date of 07 February 2011, but she failed to assimilate this information within the scope of her investigation due to her lack of neutrality. Instead of obtaining or relying on the facts, Hellen Gillespie relied on Car Carosielli’s inconclusive account as to who the approving authority “might have been” for her to justify omitting any fact relevant to my removal from NSCEAC Serial 1001. ‘The following excerpts are taking from Helen Gillespie's interview with Cdr Carosielli: “Twas the School Commandant from the summer of 2010 to 2012. Lover saw 400 staff, 600 students and was responsible operationally for the Officer Training Division, that included the Combat Engineering course that Paul Ritchie took. As Commandant, I ran the school day to day, following the training policies from HQ." 2283“So, it might have been the originally it was HQ who was the approving authority and then they might have given it to the school”. “We assigned Paul to the Maritime Warfare Centre and he seemed pleased with that.” See Vol 7, CHRC 180 / 1 — 4, paragraphs 1, 3(a) and 12(g) respectively. 34. I was never assigned to the Maritime Warfare Centre and any suggestion that I was is both false and prejudicial to the facts. It is unfortunate that Cdr Carosielli would resort to regurgitating a false accusation previously made by the Canadian Forces: “Although he would have preferred a posting instead of an assignment, it is documented that he was nonetheless satisfied with his work assignment.” See Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 243, Canadian Forces Response Paragraph 13 Statement. 35. This isa prime example of having to address the same false accusation on more than one occasion; a practice the Canadian Forces employs as interference to an investigation designed to commit confusion and invert allegations back at a complainant rather than address them. I have already addressed this accusation of being falsely employed elsewhere and will rely on those statements (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 246 ~ 247, paragraphs 13(m) and 13(n)). 36. As with the other witnesses Helen Gillespie interviewed from CFNES OT Division, Cdr Carosielli’s credibility is questionable, Helen Gillespie's lack of neutrality blinded her to rely on or omit the vague statements provided to her as answers from the simplified questions she would ask each witness. Cdr Carosielli’s failure to answer firmly the question if he was the approving authority to end my career in the Canadian Forces is one of many that warrants further inquiry. 37. Helen Gillespie in her role was expected to report the facts, however, the lack of transparency by the Commission in their practice to not disclosure the evidence collected throughout the investigation process affords an investigator a concerning option; to report on the facts, or not. Helen Gillespie chose the “not”; thus, interfering with the principle of natural justice and the practice of ensuring procedural fairness was adhered to. 38. the CHRC were not complicated; yet, they were complicated on the bi 1e grievance I filed with the Canadian Forces and my human rights complaint filed with is that the people involved in my complaints misrepresented the facts at every opportunity available to them. 3439. Ethics in the Canadian Forces (Affidavit, Exhibits 2C and 2D) states in part that all CF members are to avoid deception and to pursue the truth regardless of personal consequence. The Initial Authority, Commodore J. F. Newton, DGNP, did not seem to agree with the Ethics policy of the Canadian Forces when he wrote: “I do not intend to order a formal investigation into the alleged ethical and policy breaches committed by Officer Training Division staff ((redress item identified at paragraph 3). I have acknowledged in this response that the Officer Training Division personnel have not executed their functions with professionalism and that some errors were made. However, there was no allegation of bad faith proposed.” See Vol 5, CHRC. 061 / 14-15, para 34. 40. All documents related to my CF Grievance file and CHRC complaint are now before the Court and I look forward to un-complicating and exposing the facts beyond what I can write in this document. 41. To return to my conversation regarding the interviews I had with Helen Gillespie throughout the CHRC investigation phase, my third interview with her was on 20 November 2014, Helen Gillespie's line of questioning in this interview was unprofessional and was well beyond the jurisdiction of the CHRC’s mandate. 42. Inthe email Helen Gillespie sent me on 20 November 2014 to confirm I would be available for a phone conversation with her, she wrote the following: Twill try to phone you tonight after 6 pm as there is a few clarifications required. One item, is that the Commission asks complainants to specify the approximate amount of compensation they are requesting.” See Vol 7, CHRC 197 / 1 43, The Commission does not inappropriately ask for people to provide a dollar amount of compensation they are seeking from a complaint submitted to the Canadian Human Rights ‘Commission; it was Helen Gillespie inappropriately asking; and on whose behalf is questionable. 44, What is expected to be asked from a qualified human rights investigator is provided in a standard header in the investigation report: 3985“What are the positions of the parties with respect to an appropriate remedy to the complaint, if the parties do take a position?" See Vol 7, CHRC 226 / 22. 45, [answered this question in the 31 January 2014 document I submitted to the Commission and this should have been the quote Helen Gillespie used to fill in the box regarding my position. In that document I wrote: “At this time I do not have a statement prepared about what remedy I am seeking from the CHRC complaint process." See Vol 5, CHRC 117 / 1, para 2. 46. addressed my concemns to the third interview I had with Helen Gillespie in my response to the investigation report dated 12 January 2015 (Vol 7, CHRC 237 / 7, paragraphs 33 ~35). My statements align with Helen Gillespie’s notes (Vol 7, CHRC 196 / 1). I could not have been more explicit with Helen Gillespie that I was extremely uncomfortable with her pursing me to give her a dollar figure to the amount of compensation 1 was expecting from my human rights complaint. Regardless, Helen Gillespie wrote the following in the investigation report; crossing all lines of professionalism and neutrality “The complainant wants compensation that would properly reflect his salary, benefits, and contribution to pension that a 21-year service with the respondent would bring. The complainant declines to name a dollar figure, but notes that he would also request compensation for pain and suffering and humiliation.” See Vol 7, CHRC 226 / 22, para 201 47. The remaining few questions Helen Gillespie asked me in-between inappropriately asking me to provide her with a dollar figure, these questions had minor relevance to my human rights complaint; but yet again, was the focus of her narrow investigation. 48, In my forth and last interview with Helen Gillespie on 24 November 2014, she once again narrowed her investigation to the summer of 2010 regarding an employment opportunity I had already discussed with her. The employment opportunity I was seeking that summer was with Lt(N) Mare Larabie whose department was disbanded from HMCS Ville De Quebec that summer being in refit, Lt(N) Larbie was relocated to because the ship was in refit. As a result of the shij an office at D40A in the dockyard. (Vol 7, CHRC 209 / 4 —5 and Affidavit, Exhibit 2R). Je49, In that interview, I once again explained to Helen Gillespie that given I had passed my course and I was no longer a student, I was looking to work with Lt(N) Larabie in the ve off admin ¢ building he was located in, as I had once before at N37, Engineering Operations. 50. With complete disregard to the information I provided to her concerning the employment opportunity that I was secking with Lt(N) Larabie, the following email excerpt shows that Helen Gillespie in her prejudice to draw a favorable conclusion for the Canadian Forces, had no intent to investigate my concerns with respect to the facts. Helen Gillespie in her email to Major Phillip Nicholson, wrote: “In the summer of 2010, the complainant was seeking a posting to the Ville de Quebec, as Lt, Mark Larabie was recently appointed to the position of head of the combat engineering systems I think that if I can speak with Lt. Cdr Croucher, and understand how student appointments or postings are made 10 ships and who approves them, it will satisfy the questions.” See Vol 7, CHRC 207 / 1. 51. The question Helen Gillespie was looking to satisfy is not divulged; I assumed it was something discussed between her and Major Nicholson when he inappropriately asked Helen Gillespie, “How goes your investigation so far?” (Vol 7, CHRC 204 / 1). Helen Gillespie's response to his inquiry is also not divulged. 52. In this instance, Helen Gillespie changed the nature of my allegation I had discussed with her. Further, she relied on LCdr Croucher as a witness in this part of her investigation. LCdr Croucher was posted out of my Division and no longer my Commanding Officer at CFNES OT Division; therefore, he was not a factual witness to this incident. The proper witnesses who should have been interviewed, if any at all given the minor nature of this incident, were Lt(N) Blair MacDonald, PO1 Colin MacDonald and Lt(N) Mare Larabie. They were not interviewed. 53. Lacking all standards of neutrality, Helen Gillespie includes her statements to an allegation she manufactured in her investigation report (Investigation Report, paragraphs 77 ~ 84 and 197, bullet 3) to submit a favorable conclusion for the benefit of the Canadian Forces. She wrote: gast34, ‘Further, the respondent provided a reasonable explanation when it says that posting students to ships are managed within the context of the school program.” See Vol 7, CHRC 226 / 21, para 197, bullet 3. In my forth interview with Helen Gillespie, I made no mention of seeking a posting to a ship. Despite this breach of trust, she did capture my final comments on her investigation: 55. “C says he is concerned that I am spending too much time on small details that don't ‘matter. The big thing that ke is concerned about is the failure at the Antenna Course that led to him being kicked out of training for Naval Engineer Combat Systems and therefore ending his career. I said there was a lot of documentation regarding that and he had made other allegations that I need to address. He wanted me to know that his major concern is the finding regarding the NESEAC course failure.” See Vol 7, CHRC 203 / 1. That last statement was written 10 days prior to the conclusion of Helen Gillespie investigation. The four interviews I had with Helen Gillespie are indicative to the standards the Commission relied upon to state that all circumstances to my complaint were considered. 11 December 2014 CHRC Investigation Report — Vol 7, CHRC 226 / 1-22 56. “The commission must act in accordance with natural justice. This requires that the investigation report upon which the Commission relies be neutral and thorough and that the parties be given an opportunity to respond to it.” Canada (Attorney General) v Davis, 2010 FCA 134, para 6, ist of Authorities, Tab 2. 57, _ By association, if an investigation report is required to be neutral, the investigator must be neutral in the conduct of the investigation. There can be no lisconnect between the two, as the report is a product of the investigator. 58. soi I discussed my four interviews that took place with Helen Gillespie to raise awareness of yme irony that transpired by enduring a three year process with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, 241 of those days with my file sitting idle in a queue waiting for the investigation to ‘commence. 59. The irony I speak of wasn’t received well on my part. I expected a human rights im vestigation that would focus on fact and peel back the many layers of complexity added to mycomplaint due to the Canadian Forces directing allegations back at me rather than addressing my concems; this is their practice. Helen Gillespie in her role as a Canadian Human Rights investigator added a whole new layer of allegations and complexity on my human rights complaint that am now forced to address as a result of her flawed investigation report 60. Helen Gillespie’s responsibility to remain neutral as a Canadian Human Rights investigator was not adhered to. Rather than rely on the facts that were presented to her, she inverted facts to allegations and invested her time to reinvestigate minor issues rather than focusing her attention the major concerns of my complaint. Another example of this is found in paragraph 11 of her report: “11, The complainant alleges that during the April to June 2009 training at the Naval Engineering School, Officer Training (NES-OT), he was denied pre-boards, he was not placed on medical leave and was required to complete the assessment phase in June 2009 that he failed.". 61. There were no allegations made. Paragraph (Chapter) 2 of my 31 January 2014 statement (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 10 ~ 58) contained the information I provided to her, affirming my facts with references that could be relied upon for her investigation. Reference 2.5 (Vol 3, CHRC 006 / 102 for better quality) confirmed the fact that I was not able to complete my two assigned pre-boards due to health reasons and also confirmed the fact that I had failed the Oral Board (assessment phase) in June 2009, 62. Where Helen Gillespie got creative by inverting these facts back to allegations is that she invented and inserted the third allegation, “he was not placed on medical leave”. Paragraphs 17 ~21 and 28 in the investigation report connect to this statement. 63. [never made that allegation for her to investigate. Lacking all standards of transparency, there no reference available to where Helen Gillespie obtained this information. 64. Fact: With completion of the NEI on 05 June 2009 and my course report signed (Vol 3, CHRC 006 / 102), I went on medical leave on the dates of 09 June 2009 to 11 June 2009 (Affidavit, Exhibit 3A). Fact: medical leave is authorized from Base Hospital and is a directive that a Division does not have authority to authorize or deny; they have to comply. X9865. With Helen Gillespie providing no reference to the source of her information regarding this allegation, the best I can do is refer to the following documents to assert that I did not make this allegation: (1) Paragraph (Chapter) 2 of my 31 January 2014 CHRC statement; (2) 08 June 2009 TRB Personal Statement (Vol 4, CHRC 008 / 49 — 51); and, (3) Helen Gillespie’s notes of the four interviews she conducted with me. Her claim to this allegation she would invent and investigate is imaginary; however, the repercussions this would have on my valid human rights complaint left my interests (procedural fairness, natural justice) in the investigative process unbalanced 66, The invention of new allegations having a significant appearance in the investigation report is a pattern that is outside the norm of natural justice. In paragraph 30 of the investigation report, this pattern continues with Helen Gillespie writing: “30. The complainant alleges that when the TRB's recommendations were not followed, he was required to have his Oral Board in August 2009 and did not pass." 67. ‘The other paragraphs in the investigation report connected to this statement are paragraphs 31-32, 36 ~ 41 and 197, Bullet 1. In paragraph 197, within the first summary statement, Helen Gillespie wrote: “197. It is a reasonable explanation that given the opportunity to have practice in two Pre-Boards and retry the final oral examination would benefit the complainant. Further, the evidence supports that when the complainant failed his second Oral Board in August 2009, he was re-coursed, as per the Training Review Board's recommendation.” 68. Ato time in my human rights complaint did I acknowledge that I had two pre-boards in August 2009 and failed a second Oral board in August 2009. On the issue of transparency, Helen Gillespie does not provide a documented reference to enforce the validity of her statements, however, with her statement “the evidence supports”, her baseless claim implied indisputable conclusiveness, despite there is no specific day attached. 69. With Helen Gillespie claiming a falsehood of facts which she relied on to favor her recommendation to see my human rights complaint dismissed, I am once again challenged to reply toa false allegation already made prior to her investigation. 229070. There were three versions of the 02 Februrary 2011 TRB’s Record of Proceedings (ROP) document (Affidavit, Exhibit 8A, Note 5). Of the three versions, I will comment on the first version which was unlawfully destroyed by Lt(N) Ian Rector. 71. The first version of the ROP was presented to me to read and sign on 10 March 2011 by Lt(N) Joseph Chaput. I did not sign the document and the incident that followed resulted in the medical staff at base hospital removing me from my unit. The events that unfolded on 10 March 2011 are directly connected to the Remedial Measure for Conduct Deficiency that was issued to me on 31 March 2011 (Vol 3, CHRC 006 / 48 ~ 49). Paragraph (Chapter) 13 of my 31 January 2014 document discusses the events of 10 March 2011 (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 243 ~ 268), 72. On 26 April 2011, I made a formal request to CFNES Cmadt Cdr Carosielli requesting to have the Remedial Measure removed from my file (Vol 3, CHRC 007 / 241 ~ 258). In Annex B of that document, I discussed the first version of the ROP document I was required to sign. Note: the original reference 1 attached to Annex B was removed and replaced, but can be found at Vol 3, CHRC 007 / 132. 73, The only existing reference that I am aware of that discussed me attempting a second Oral Board in 2009 after I failed the first on 03 June 2009 is contained in paragraph 2 of Annex B (Vol 3, CHRC 007 /255) in my document request to see the Remedial Measures removed from my file. Inmy Annex B, I captured the essence of what the original version of the ROP document contained prior to being destroyed. In paragraph two I discuss explicitly the existence of a false claim that I had failed a second Oral Board in 2009. 4. On 10 March 2011 | had to deal with the false claim of a second Oral Board in 2009. I disputed this claim and factually proved myself to be correct. In the 02 February 2011 TRB’s Record of Proceedings final version, this document contains no mention of a second Oral Board in 2009 (Vol 3, CHRC 007 / 149 = 156). If | had failed a second Oral Board it failure occu 2009, it would have been stated in paragraph 5 of that document. 75. Finally, Cdr Croucher, CFNES OT Divsional Commander at that time, confirms: a7“Despite my initial direction & the mbr’s (member) desires, things have unfolded poorly. Pre-boards have not gone well & the mbr does not think he can get ready on time. Recommend we stop, load him on next NEI & go from there.” See Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 58, note dated 21 Aug 09. 76. With all of the Commission's documents related to my human rights complaint now submitted, I can state factually that there is no evidence to support Helen Gillespie’s claim that I failed an Oral Board on an unknown date in August 2009. My inquiry with Ikram Warsame, Counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, on obtaining the evidence and/or a date August 2009, that 's false claim that I failed an Oral Board related to Helen Gillespi conversation ended with the following statement: “This is further to your email of July 16, 2015. As you know, the Commission has provided 5 volumes of supplementary disclosure in relation 10 the above-referenced ‘matter. It is therefore possible to find duplicates in the disclosure. That being said, if you believe that the evidence does not support the conclusion in the investigation report (or does not exist, kindly raise the issue with the Court.” See Affidavit, Exhibit 6D. 77. Lam affirming that the evidence does not exist. This is a sad tactic for the Human Rights Commission to have no responsibility to the factual correctness of an investigation report released by their organization. Rather than take ownership and prove evidence used in a human rights investigation report does exist, which would adhere to the principles of transparency, procedural faimess and correctness, the Commission dismisses its administrative responsibilities to these principles and in turn challenges a complainant to prove instead evidence does not exist. The administrative system is broken. 78. Helen Gillespie's inability to report on the facts ripples throughout the entire investigation report. I endured a grievance process that required two investigations and 520 days for a final decision to be reached on my file. With no respect for what little accomplishment | achieved from that process, Helen Gillespie wrote: “The evidence supports that as a result of the grievance process, it was determined that while the Qualification and Standard Plan (QSP) was applied, an incorrect marking scheme was handed out at the beginning of the course. Consequently, when the QSP was applied, the complainant failed the EM/Antenna NCSEAC Serial 1001 course.” See Vol 7, CRC 226 / 14, para 109. 984079. There is no evidence that I failed the EM / Antenna Theory course when the QSP was applied. The a breakdown of the final passing marks I would have achieved by use of the QSP (error favoring the student) or the Course Syllabus grading scheme can be found in Vol 6, CHRC 118/216. The evidence confirming my assessment of obtaining a passing mark in accordance with the QSP was confirmed through the CF Grievance process. In the grievance decision it states: “The Qualifications Standards and Plans (QSP) is intended to set the training standard and, inclusive of the marking scheme established therein, should have been applied to the EM/Antenna Theory portion of the NCSEAC Serial 1001 course. The QSP marking scheme is weighted 30% for assignments and 70% tests (with two tests noted).” “Relative to the OSP marking scheme, the instructor erred by administering two tests and one exam rather than the two tests specified in the QSP marking scheme. The Director Maritime Training and Education (DMTE) advised that itis the schools unofficial policy in errors of due process ‘to always err in the favor of the student, which included TRB proceedings’. Therefore, if the unofficial school policy were applied as a course of action, disqualification of the lowest mark relative to the three tests would result in a final marks of 69.18%.” See Initial Authority Final Grievance Decision, Vol 5, CHRC 061 / 8, paragraphs 6 and 7. 80. The construction of an excuse that the instructor errored when not adhering to the QSP was a convenient benefit afforded to Sean Kavanaugh; but, this I do not agree with and never have based on the facts. To actually believe Sean Kavanaugh errored, you then have to believe Li(N) Chaput who taught the Weapons course (aka NCS) also errored, The marking scheme from the QSP for the Weapons course states 3 Tests (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 212). Lt(N) Chaput’s marking scheme, confirmed by CFNES OT Division Training Officer Lt(N) Ian Rector, allowed for 3 Tests and 3 Assignments (Affidavit, Exhibit 4P, NCS Spreadsheet). The word “Standard” in the acronym “QSP” became meaningless to those investigating my concerns. A zero tolerance stance on discrimination does not allow for excuses; yet, there it exists to circumvent fact. 81. There are many more issues I would like to draw attention to in the I1 December 2014 CHRC investigation report to demonstrate the investigation report was flawed; however, most will have to wait for my hearing given the complexity of explanation required due the misalignment of information Helen Gillespie created and collected in her investigation. The last statement I would like to discuss from the investigation report is paragraph 38. This paragraph states: a“The complainant did not respond to Lt. Sargeant’s statement that the decision to try the Oral Boards in August was a mutual decision.” 82. Fact: Lt(N) Andrew Sargeant was interviewed on 20 November 2014 (See Vol 7, CHRC 199 /1~5). Fact, in the two conversations I had with Helen Gillespie on the 20% and 24" of November 2014, Helen Gillespie does not discuss with me Lt(N) Sargeant’s statement; therefore, I was not provided an opportunity to respond as she falsely stated in the investigation report. 83. Helen Gillespie states I did not respond to Lt(N) Sargeant’s statement on the premise that: she wanted a false statement to be received as being truthful for the benefit of her credibility as a CHRC Investigator; and, a non-credible witness to be deemed credible, 84. Fa In my submission dated 31 January 2014, I provided a statement to Lt(N) Sargeant’s absurd account that I mutually agreed to something that I did not agree to. In paragraph 2(m) I wrote, “That conversation with L1(N) Sargeant never happened.” See Vol 6, CHRC 118/12. 85. My entire position was made prior to Lt(N) Sargeant’s interview (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 10— 63). Lacking neutrality, Helen Gillespie ignored my statement that countered Lt(N) Sargeant’s and ignored the documents that aligned with my position. Lt(N) Sargeant can claim on 10 August 2009 I mutually agreed to this deception to see me fail a second NEI Oral Board, but the facts do not support this his claim. 1 do not support his claim, 86, The 11 December 2014 CHRC investigation report is flawed. Helen Gillespie with no respect to her position, with no respect to the facts, with no respect to neutrality or thoroughness, sent her biased report to the CHRC as complete. The CHRC with no respect for me as a complainant, sent this irreparable investigation report to me with no legitimate expectation that I would be able to respond to it fairly within a limit of 10 pages (Vol 7, CHRC 224 / 1-2 and Vol 7, CHRC 227 / 1). The Commission has failed to adhere to its mandate. Witness Interviews 87. The Guide for Canadian Forces Members Dealing with Canadian Human Rights Commission is located in Vol 6, CHRC 151 / 1-3. It states the following: gan“Witnesses shall not make guesses or assumptions in response to questions that are solely based on their CF experience or what they believe should have or might have occurred. Iawitness does not know the answer to a particular question, or if they are not the SME in the area being questioned, they must say so and not offer opinions. Answering truthfully will not have an impact on your career unless you negligently performed your duties." 88. For simplicity, the witness interviews can be found in the following locations. In Vol 6, they are located in CHRC 142, 143, 157, 164, 179, 180, 192, 193, 199, 215 and 217. There are no notes disclosed to the follow up interview Helen Gillespie conducted with Lt(N) Sexton at CHRC 164. Sean Kavanaugh’s complete interview is located in Vol 8, pages 2273 - 2274. 89, Helen Gillespie employed no mechanism to ensure the answers to the questions she put forward to the witnesses adhered to fact or had relevance to my complaint. She lacked specifies in her questions with no sense of duty to follow up on answers that did not align with her investigation. She was satisfied with any answer provided to her, even when the evidence in her possession discredited the information the witnesses provided to her. Here are some examples. 90. Joseph Chaput interview dated 27 October 2014, Vol 6, CHRC 143 / 4, paragraph 13: “Do you recall Ana Daradics contacting you regarding the grievance investigation? I was not contacted about a grievance.” Joesph Chaput was contacted by grievance investigator Lt(N) Daradics, the emails of his communications with Lt(N) Daradics are located in Vol 6, CHRC 118 /154—157. OL. Kyle Sexton interview dated 30 October 2014, Vol 6, CHRC 157 / 3, paragraph 13(b): “Do you recall conversations or notes to file regarding his medical issues? I remember conversations with him about his glasses or his eyes.” 92. Fact: there is not a single divisional note written by Lt(N) Sexton capturing this false conversation in which he selectively remembers without detail. Pact: this divisional issues regarding my eyes and tinted glasses were resolved under Lt(N) Sargeant’s watch as my Divisional Officer. The glasses were CF approved and I wore them to succeed on the 2010 Naval Engineer Indoctrination course (Vol 4, CHRC 008 / 64) without issue. da5593. What Helen Gillespie was referring in that question that would apply to my human rights complaint linked to Kyle Sexton are the two forged medical chit documents Kyle Sexton submitted to CFNES Commandant: (1) to cover up my chronic sinus infection medical issue that was first identified on 18 October 2010 and that would require two surgeries to correct; (2) to support the Division removing me from my training on 07 February 2011. These documents were divisional records to be added to my training file as submitted; regardless, Li(N) Sexton altered these divisional records by placing his note and signature in each document and had my signature placed on these documents without my knowledge (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 2, paragraphs 1(g) ~ 1(i). 94. Ian Rector statement dated 07 November 2014, Vol 7, CHRC 179 / 3, paragraph 3(2): “Any warnings to Ritchie? Idon't recall. Oh, it might be my signature on the file there were 2 RM’s that Iwas involved with, but strictly from a signature point of view.” 95. Fact, [had one Remedial Measure placed in my file as an act of retaliation to my complaint of harassment (Vol 3, CHRC 006 / 48 ~ 49). The policy on Remedial Measures is submitted in my Affidavit as Exhibit 2E. 96. The warnings that Helen Gillespie was referring to that would apply to my human rights complaint linked to Lt(N) Rector (Training Officer) are the academic warnings I was given while on NCSEAC Serial 1001. ‘The OTTM 04/09 — Student Review Process policy which addressed sp 141. Lt(N) Rector confirms the use of this policy in his statement dated 31 January 2011 (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 220-221). ically how the academic warnings are to be managed is located in Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 138 ~ 97. The organization chart of CFNES OT Division is submitted in my Affidavit as Exhibit 2H. This chart is how the Division was structured after my 02 February 2011 TRB, Note: Capt M. Prince from Standards, she was a member of my Training Review Board and was assigned to CFNES OT Division after my 02 February 2011 TRB hearing 98. Policy CFNES Standard Operations 108, Training Staff Responsibilities is provided in my Affidavit as Exhibit 2L. Policy CFNES SO 415, CFNES Training Responsibilities is provided in my Affidavit as Exhibit 2N. Lt(N) Rector as the Training Officer at CENES OT Division would ga%IGbe classified as an Instructor Supervisor in accordance with these this policies. As the Divisional Training Officer, he was responsible for the accurate assessment of student progress. 99. LU(N) Rector failed to administer his responsibilities with professionalism and perform his duties in accordance to his position, Helen Gillespie asking the question about warnings, failed to receive an answer from Lt(N) Rector that was truthful and applicable to my human rights complaint. Thoroughness on Helen Gillespie's part was not the goal. Guided by her bias, Helen Gillespie found Ian Rector’s answer to her question acceptable and moved on to the next question. 100, Alexi Vichnevetski statement dated 17 November 2014, Vol 7, CHRC 193 / 2, paragraph €:“We had a meeting about Paul — as a group we were grading students and there was negative feedback about Paul. Noone had a high opinion of him at the time. Paul Ritchie had the lowest ‘marks and he had failed 3 courses.” 101. In this statement, Lt(N) Vichnevetski confirms that the training staff at CFNES OT Division were in fact unprofessional and on 17 January 2011 (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 28, Divisional Note dated 17 January 201 1) they gathered to discuss the low opinions they had of me as a person. 102. This information was new to me and key to my human rights complaint; but Helen Gillespie neither discussed it with me to defend against nor did she mentioned his confession of the negative feedback and low opinion within the investigation report. She did however without any concerns to the facts use the last sentence in her report (Vol 7, CHRC 226 / 15, para 123). 103. Fact: I did not have the lowest marks (consistently as implied) and as an Instructor, Lt(N) Vichnevetski would not have had access to my marks (outside of his course) to validate this claim. In my Affidavit in Exhibit 4F I provided the Digital Signal Processing Test #2 where Sean Kavanaugh noted on my test directly that I ranked 9 of 11 (two classmates of thirteen were exempt). This part of his statement has no claim of truthfulness to it, it was merely his opinion. 104. L1(N) Vichnevetski’s claim that I had failed three courses is a manufactured false statement. Fact: Prior to being removed from NCSEAC Serial 1001 on 07 February 2011, four other courses other than the Electromagentics / Antenna Theory Course had been completed for final mark assessment. These courses were: (1) Weapons; (2) Fluid Power; (3) Digital Signal Qxa7Processing; and, (4) Analog. Ian Rector in his TRB statement confirms I had passed all four courses (Vol 6, CHRC 118 / 221). 105. Having to defend against false statements that Helen Gillespie selectively chose to use in her report without any regard to seek the truth is unprofessional and is a discriminatory practice. For Officers in the Canadian Forces to submit false statements to any investigative process, this is harassment, and the conduct of harassment within the Canadian Forces is a crime. 106. Andrew Sargeant statement dated 20 November 2014, Vol 7, CHRC 199 / 4, paragraph 10. Gillespie with this statement, which she accepted as fact. ‘He wasn't on training on the Charlottetown.” LA(N) Sargent intentionally misled Helen 107. Lt(N) Fortan was my Divisional Officer while I served on board HMCS Charlottetown from 14 September 2009 to 11 December 2009. Lt(N) Fortan was a key witness to my claims, but Helen Gillespie did not seek him out for an interview. Regardless, I can rely on Lt(N) Fortan’s Personnel Development Review report he signed 02 March 2010 (Vol 3, CHRC 006 / 100). To quote that report, it states in the first line, “A/SL¢ Ritchie was provided an excellent training opportunity onboard CHARLOTTETOWN to prepare for his NELand OOD board.” 108. Danny Croucher statement dated 25 November 2014, Vol 7, CHRC 215 / 2, paragraphs Sand 6: “How do you know Paul Ritchie? Idon’t remember him.” He then goes on to give his opi arrange.” mn, “I remember is that he had issues fitting in and we gave him some social activities t0 109. Fact: | was never tasked to arrange social activities for Cdr Croucher and there is no divisional record to suggest otherwise. He provided his opinion of my character which he conveniently remembers after explicitly stating he did not remember me. 110. Sean Kavanaugh statement dated 27 October 2014, CHRC Supplementary Rule 318 Certificate dated 30 June 2015, Application Record pages 2273 - 2274, para I(a): “Paul was not ‘granted any exemptions and in my opinion, a Computer Science degree is not ideal.” 1 refer to my Affidavit, Exhibit SC. This email dated 30 August 2010 is my confirmation to Lt(N) Chaput that I accepted his offer of course exemptions for NCSEAC Serial 1001 AIAInvestigation Report — Pretext For Discrimination 111, The first page of the investigation report states, “The Commission members do not determine whether discrimination has actually occurred, but whether a complaint requires further inquiry by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.” 112. Helen Gillespie’s investigation report does not meet the standards of reasonableness and thoroughness as her investigation applied Step 2 of her report, “whether the respondent can provide a reasonable explanation for its actions that is not a pretext for discrimination on a prohibited ground." Given this critical step is the basis for determination if further inquiry is warrented to the CHRT, the neutrality of an Investigator is as critical as the reasonable explanation required to determine if there is or is not a pretext for discrimination, 113. Lacking neutrality and the absence of a reasonable explanation, Helen Gillespie at this critical step of her investigation draws a conclusion without the required justification. In the investigation report she states: “The respondent has provided a reasonable explanation in that there were inaccuracies in the report to the TRB. However, the inaccuracies as presented by the parties do not appear to be a pretext for discrimination because of the complainant's sexual orientation.” See Vol 7, CHRC 226 / 18, para 155. 114, That statement connects to paragraphs 149 — 154 in the investigation report; two discussions, one on the Student Review Process and the other on some of the inaccuracies within the statements CFNES OT Division training staff submitted to the 02 February 2011 TRB process. Helen Gillespie failed to include the issues of the Student Review Process in her conclusion at paragraph 155. Instead she only addresses the statements related to the inaccuracies and implies a sufficient reasonable explanation exists when no factual explanation is provided. More concerning, she then uses her implied “reasonable explanation” to determine it wasn’t a pretext for discrimination because of my sexual orientation. 115. Whois the respondent? Helen Gillespie obtained the information in paragraphs 149 — 154 of the investigation report from the CF Grievance Process. The CF Grievance process only responded to my concems of what happened, but provided no reasonable explanation to the why. 3994Helen Gillespie had the opportunity to ask her witnesses to provide a reasonable explanation to the Student Review Process and the inaccuracies, but she did not and her notes from the interviews she conducted confirms this. 116. Lacking transparency and fact, Helen Gillespie all at once implies without disclosure that a reasonable explanation was provided from an unidentifiable source to address only one of the two issues she discussed in paragraphs 149 ~ 154; and, deemed this reasonable to conclude the nor inaccuraci selective he used in her report do not appear to be a pretext for discrimination. a closed mind, Sanderson v. Helen Gillespie’s approach to investigate my complaint was Canada (Attorney Gerneral), 2006 FC 447, at para 75, List of Authorities, Tab 3. 117. Using logic, if'a person can only conclude loosely that something does not appear to be a pretext for discrimination, then, it can be equally argued that something does appear to be a pretext for discrimination. Applying fact that there is an absolute absence of a reasonable explanation in Helen Gillespie’s conclusion at para 155, the balance of the two countering positions shifts to “it does appear” to be a pretext for discrimination, Helen Gillespie’s conclusion at paragraph 155 is an opinion, not fact. 118. With the Commission adopting Helen Gillespie’s flawed investigation report as complete and thorough, a concerning trend continues: “In fact, statistics provided to the ERA indicate that no harassment complaint — which would include a complaint of sexual harassment — was referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal between January 1, 2009 and July 18, 2014." 119, The above statement is taken from the External Review into Sexual Assault Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces Report, written by Extemal Review Authority, Marie Deschamps, dated 27 March 2015 (Affidavit, Exhibit 2A, Report Page 79). That statement is in no way a complement to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the role it has to ensure Canadian Forces member's human rights are protected equally to the general Canadian population. The system is broken. 120. “Cases decided after Slattery have established that a decision to dismiss a complaint made by the Commission in reliance upon a deficient investigation will itself be deficient as ‘[i]f the Horeports were defective, it follows that the Commission was not in possession of sufficient relevant information upon which it could properly exercise its discretion’. Sanderson, supra, at para 46, List of Authorities, Tab 3. 121. _Itis my position that investigation report was deficient, beyond reasonableness; therefoi the Commission's was not in possession of sufficient relevant information to determine that further inquiry into my human rights was not warrented. Investigation Report — Relevant Representations and Decision 122, “The Commission was also required to provide the parties with the opportunity to make all relevant representations in response to the Investigators Report and to consider those representations in making its decision.” Banks v. Canada Post Corp, 2004 FC 713, at para 25, List of Authorities, Tab 4. 123. I was denied to make all relevant representations to the 11 December 2014 CHRC Investigation Report. I was limited to 10 pages with attachments counting on that limit. This directive was sent to me by CHRC Investigations Manager John Chamberlin on 11 December 2011 with the investigation report (Vol 7, CHRC 224 / will read the first 10 pages.” |. As stated in his letter, “The Commission 124, On 16 December 2014, I spoke with John Chamberlin regarding the limitation of the 10 pages he imposed on my submission to the investigation report. His directive did not change in that conversation (Vol 7, CHRC 227 / 1). In his note, he states that the limit of 10 pages was a standard approved by the Courts, I have found no Court reference that confirms his statement. 125. The following actions I took are now recorded and will be discussed at my hearing. With no alternative, I submitted on 12 January 2015 a 10 page response to the investigation report (Vol 7, CHRC 237/ 1-11). 126. The Canadian Forces were privileged to read my submission to the investigation report and respond to it. I was not afforded the same privilege to receive the CF’s response dated 19 December 2014 or their cross submission dated 29 January 2015 (Vol 2, Application Record pages avi544 - 546). The letters sent from John Chamberlin with respect to the CF’s submission and cross submission were redirect to David Bright’s Office on 14 January 2014 and 04 February 2014 (Vol 7, CHRE 240 / 1 - 2 and CHRC 249 / 1). By procedural fairness standards, I was denied the ‘opportunity to respond to the Canadian Force's submission to the investigation report with the misdirection of those letters to an address that was not my own. 127. On 15 April 2015, CHRC Legal Counsel Ikram Warsame sent the Rule 318 Certificate containing the list of documents that were put before the Commission for their decision making process (Vol 2, Application Record pages 505 - 506). In the cover letter Ikram Warsame states: “Pursuant to rule 318, we enclose certified copies of the documents that were before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’) when it rendered its decision with respect to the human rights complaint filed by Paul Ritchie against the Canadian Armed Forces (20111882). We also enclose a copy of the letter of decision.” “Please note that the documents presented to the Commission for decision are the investigation report, the complaint form and subsequent submissions by the parties, if any” 128. While this is the claim, that the usual documents were put before the Commission and the Commission relied on the investigation report in its final decision, “having regards to all the circumstances of the complaint, further inquiry is not warrented”, this is not the case based on the evidence at hand 129, ‘The Commission based its decision on a one page summary John Chamberlin wrote on 04 February 2015 (Affidavit, Exhibit 6C), adopting its decision from the recommendation in this summary. This document was originally denied in the Supplementary 318 Certificate sent on 26 May 2015 on a claim of Client ~Solicitor Privilege (Vol 3, Schedule “B”, Application Record page 574). This one page summary served one purpose; to erase my concerns that the investigation report was flawed Part IV - Order Sought 130. The bias to my human rights complaint against the Canadian Forces is not just limited to ‘ion as well. Helen Gillespie, the Investigator, it extends to the Canadian Human Rights Commis JOR‘The CHRC Investigation and Decision processes were tailored to see my human rights complaint fail for the benefit of the respondent. The lack of accountability made this possible. 131, I respectfully request: 1. That the application for judicial review be allowed, with costs; and 2. The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s decision to be set aside with a referral to a Board of Inquiry pursuant to subparagraph 44(3)(a)(i) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Dated at Halifax, Nova Scotia this 19" day of November 2015. CoS Ritch Paul D. Ritchie Applicant TO: Registrar Federal Court ANDTO: — Melissa Chan Department of Justice Suite 1400 — 5251 Duke Street Halifax, NS_B3J1P3 Counsel for the Respondent 2308PART V-LIST OF AUTHORITIES Legislation 1. Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, ¢. H-6) Jurisprudence 2. Canada (Attorney General) v. Davis, 2010 FCA 134 3. Sanderson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 447 4. Banks v. Canada Post Corp, 2004 FC 713 Reports. 5. Perspectives From the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, Volume 1, No. 7, April 2012 6. Canadian Forces Grievance System Combined 2011 and 2012 Annual Report 304