Freedom Flyer November 1996 Cover

Freedom Flyer 30

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

November 1996




ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPEALS BOARD OF INQUIRY RULING

LONDON (October 24 & 25, 1996) - Three justices of the Ontario Divisional Court have reserved their decision with respect to an Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) appeal to overturn a 1994 Board of Inquiry ruling. That ruling found that there was no evidence to support a racism complaint against London landlord Elijah Elieff, who was represented before the Board by Freedom Party president Robert Metz. (A complete accounting of the issue has been reported in several past issues of Freedom Flyer, and is now available to the public on Freedom Party's Website at: https://www.freedomparty.org/cheyenne.htm.)

Since he is not a lawyer, and has been busy acting as an advocate for Elieff directly to the government (see also the articles in this issue, Human Rights Commission says no financial records exist and the Freedom Brief Metz meets with MPP Clement), Metz did not represent the former landlord before the court.

Elieff was originally forced before an OHRC Board of Inquiry after a paid lobbyist by United Church of Canada, Reverend Susan Eagle , actively sought out a member from the Cambodian community in Elieff's Cheyenne Ave apartment buildings to launch a contrived complaint of racism against him. While keeping the landlord thus occupied, and with the unabashed and totally biased assistance of the London Free Press, she lobbied both the provincial and London's municipal government for taxpayer money to have Elieff's apartment buildings converted into publicly-funded co-op housing.

"The fact that the OHRC is completely undisturbed and unaffected by these facts is alarming," comments Metz. "Obviously, they have a lot to lose if our 1994 victory before the Board of Inquiry should set a precedent.

"What's at stake for the Ontario Human Rights Commission is its right to conduct investigations and hearings without having to consider evidence, and without having to be held accountable for its arbitrary --- and racist --- mandate in the province of Ontario," he concludes.

Elieff did not have legal counsel and had to represent himself because he has no money left following his losses caused by the whole affair. Those losses include his Cheyenne Ave apartment buildings which housed a majority of Asian tenants, and a submarine sandwich shop which also became a target of a planned conspiracy to discredit and label him a racist.

A recent immigrant himself, Elieff speaks a broken English which reveals his Macedonian background, and certainly does not possess the legal expertise necessary to defend himself adequately on his own. As far as he's concerned, he's innocent of any wrongdoing and knows that those responsible for his plight have thus far managed to evade any direct responsibility for their actions.

SHAKY GROUNDS

The OHRC's appeal was based on 15 legal arguments that the Board of Inquiry erred on the following grounds:

According to the appeal, "the Board of Inquiry:

1. "...erred in failing to conduct a substantive equality analysis in determining whether discrimination occurred;

2. "...erred in failing to consider relevant legal principles in determining whether discrimination occurred;

3. "...applied the wrong burden of proof for determining whether discrimination occurred;

4. "...erred in requiring demonstration of animus* (*ed: intent) in order to find that discrimination occurred;

5. "...failed to consider whether indirect or systemic discrimination occurred, despite section 9 (then 8) of the Code having been argued;

6. "...erred in failing to consider relevant testimony, especially where the Board found the witness to be credible;

7. "...erred in ruling that principles of constructive discrimination were applicable where there were no neutral rules or policies in issue;

8. "...erred in distinguishing the actionability of discriminatory comments made directly to the complainant versus those comments made directly by the respondent to the public about the complainant and other members of the Cambodian community;

9. "...erred in determining that corroborating evidence of the complainant's evidence was required, especially in light of the Board of Inquiry's finding that Elijah Elieff was not a credible witness;

10. "...erred in concluding that subsequent acts of the respondents could not be considered in determining whether a breach of the Code had occurred;

11. "...erred in concluding that a racially poisoned environment did not exist;

12. "...erred in failing to consider the differential impact of the respondents' treatment of Chippheng Hom as a female member of the Cambodian community and other Cambodian tenants;

13. "...erred in awarding minimal restitution to the complainant having found the complainant suffered considerable mental anguish and having found the respondents' conduct in reprisal was both deliberate and severe;

14. "...erred in failing to conclude that discrimination occurred contrary to sections 2 and 9 of the Code;

15. "...erred in failing to award interest."

Solicitors for the OHRC spent the entire first day and the opening hours of the second day arguing their case by citing legal precedents from across the country --- none of which had anything to do with the direct or indirect actions of Mr. Elieff.

Despite his legal handicap, Elieff gave an impassioned accounting of the events that led to his predicament, while court justices seemed genuinely receptive to his story, and amazed at some of the finer details of the case. Most significantly, Mr. Elieff managed, after an initial objection, to get the court to accept several copies of Freedom Party's Consent 21, which contained an edited version of Metz's Final Argument before the original Board of Inquiry. Armed with both the personal testimony of Mr. Elieff and with the documented article in Consent, the justices now have an excellent opportunity to view Elieff's situation in full context.

Stay tuned to this newsletter for future updates on this tragic affair.




Contact FP
Freedom Flyer Newsletter

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002

FP logo (small)