On November 29, 2025, I will be showing Systemic Injustice in the Davis Building of the University of Toronto Mississauga campus. It will be followed a brief discussion with people who are interested in the culture of Indigenous racism in Canada.
The showing is part of a long-term strategy to overcome systemic bias in Canada. Many times, I have tried to show people why mascots are indicative of a major problem within Canada. But Canadians are not willing to listen.
In a system any Calvinist would be proud of, in Canada, there are the select, the true Canadians, who do not question or complain about injustice. Questioning the system means that Canada is not perfect. To prove that you are Canadian, keep your head down and your mouth shut. You can’t lose the perpetual game of crazy chairs if you never stand up.
Those who question, the reprobates like me, who see the lies manifest in the unequal protections of the human rights code, who see that justice is provided only at the discretion of the fallible Just Us system, will never be accepted. To question boldface bullshit is to separate yourself from the accepting herd that is content with the system that benefits them. Questioning bias is to separate from the Us and ensure justice never finds you in the Just Us system.
It is a choice with which I am comfortable. I would rather stand apart from the norm than accept a country that provides the protections of citizenship to only the select. To many of you, this is an unjustified perspective. I would like to give you some insight as to why I have that perspective.
When I filed a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario claim against the City of Mississauga, the Human Rights Commission of Ontario intervened on my behalf, as per the documentation I signed to allow them to do so.
Yet after the HRTO threw out the case vs Mississauga, after stretching out the original hearing until the adjudicate on the case’s contract was done, the Human Rights Commissioner claimed they got involved in the mascots dialogue to rethink human rights to better recognize and respect Indigenous sovereignty. Also, the HRCO, with input from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, charged with upholding the universal protections of the Charter of Rights, stated that our individual-rights-based system is not ideally set up to effectively deal with some of the biggest issues facing Indigenous communities.
When I finally read the Indigenous dialogue report in 2024, I was shocked. First, the HRCO rewrote history and gave an alternative narrative as to why they supported me in my case vs Mississauga. Second, the HRCO’s decision to rethink human rights with respect to Indigenous sovereignty unwittingly or venally implied that my rights as an out of province Indigenous person could be subject to the discretion of an unrelated third party; warranting an extra test of citizenship upon me while making me a fourth class Canadian. That line of thought was consistent with the disgraceful actions of the adjudicate in the Mississauga case who questioned my government issued ID as if he had the authority to declare my heritage false, testing it again patterns of grandparent identity taught to him by Haudenosaunee advisors. I do not know if I was the first to tell a judge that he did not have the FN right to challenge my status, but I am sure I was justified.
The third and most disgusting point is that the Human Rights Commission of Ontario sought to identify conditionality in the human rights protections. When I read this alternative narrative of their reasoning, I was shocked. I thought about what to do for a long time. Then I filed a complaint against the province of Ontario with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Once again, the CHRT denied the claim and sent me back to one of the abusers, the HRTO, seemingly acting as a tool of the Ford government to suppress dissent, to ask them to hear my complaints.
When I was sent back to the HRTO by the CHRC, I had already declined to use the HRTO on a couple of issues. I believe that they will shut down any complainant who does not thank them first for doing their job and those who they do not see as worthy of rights.
When the HRTO adjudicate sided with the utility witness in the Horizon breach case, who claimed an audit of the programs I ran and not submitted to the HRTO in a 2012 Newfie Joke case, were normal course of business but could not provide another example, and the HRTO adjudicate decided that had not bearing on whether it was normal course of business, I realized the HRTO was a joke. If you watch the documentary there are several times where I have the logos of the HRTO and CHRT bouncing, like kangaroos in a Bugs bunny cartoon.
I did not seek remedy when DPCDSB did not honor a 2018 deal to ban mascot paraphernalia. Instead, I sat my daughter out until they did after 3 games. I did not seek help from the HRTO when DPCDSB did not honor the HRTO in 2019 for the second year. I filed a complaint with the Ontario College of Teachers reported the Gonzaga principal, and school family superintendent. The complaint against the retiring principal was accepted but the complaint was dismissed when DPCDSB claimed a separate side deal was reached, one that did not include me, to allow mascot wear to continue for three years and Indigenous mascots do not violate safe and accepting schools.
For fun, I mocked the school board for supporting the principal with the OCT. The next day, in the height of the COVID, my wife who was in barely able to continue to teach as her PPMS necessitate using a walker to get to and from class, was called on her way to work and sent to a school just south of Bramalea hospital to teach an online class. They sent an immunocompromised employee an extra 11 km from her home to teach an online class at peak Covid to the highest postal code area in Canada. It was the day after I mocked the board for refusing to honor a HRTO deal. I really do not know what you are talking about when people talk about Canadian kindness.
Especially since it was the second time my wife’s job was affected by my activism. In 2016, when I first questioned DPCDSB’s mascot policy, she lost a job she had been promised in dubious circumstances. With my career ruined for being stupid enough to use the HRTO, to have her career threatened, and eventually her disability expedited to keep mascots was a disgusting result of Canada’s denial of Indigenous racism.
I did send in a retaliation application against Horizon after their witness claimed that they audited a provincial program, funded by the province, designed by the province, for commercial and industrial programs managed by me during the time I worked there, based on letter from the vulnerable energy consumers coalition who represented people typically covered by multi-residential programs.
When the added the letter identified as an attempt to justify the withheld OEB audit, was allowed to be entered into evidence at the hearing, when it was neither in the disclosures before the hearing nor on the OEB website at the time of the hearing, was permitted in the hearing as justification for the reasoning it was normal course of business then it begged a question. I asked the Alectra witness to give example of other provincial programs the company audited, and why they did not audit all programs. But the vice chair shut down the questions from such a reliable witness. Kafka would be pointing a finger and saying I told you so.
The retaliation case was thrown out by the HRTO during Covid on a newly imposed 30-day timeline in 2020. The perjury assertion was not followed up on. I requested to the Ombudsman, the Ethics Commissioner, the ministry of Justice and all to follow up on the perjury hearing without success.
When I left a PhD program at the University of Windsor in Sociology: Social Justice I did not file a complaint from the HRTO. I was reported to the Head of department for being angry in class in the fall of 2022 as a professor continuously defended calling Indigenous societies as primitive and savage. I mocked Mauss’s “The Gift” for heavily relying on his father in-law’s assertion that Indigenous cultures were primitive and savage. Based upon racist assumptions, then the output can only be seen as garbage. Garbage in, garbage out is a basic scientific premise. Reading “The Gift” as an Indigenous could be reduced to an exercise of Mauss saying that while all these cultures are the same, if we try and understand their savagery than maybe we can learn something about white people.
If you are an educated person and you cannot recognize that calling one culture primitive and savage is out of step with universal dignity expected in society. It is not educated to be teaching theories based in racist assumptions of scientific racism or white supremacy. A sociology professor glorifying Durkheim’s primitive classification is akin to a biology professor defending spontaneous generation.
It is not academic freedom that allows an academic to retain racist ideology, it is collective bias within the system, and the needless protection of academic stupidity. When I shared this story with a collection of History, Sociology and Anthropology professors, one professor emailed back and stated that Durkheim was exactly right. You would think racist folly would be the antithesis educational achievement.
After dropping out of Windsor, I asked two other schools in southwestern Ontario to continue my PhD in the fall of 2023. When I thought there was a strong possibility that I could continue at another school, one I could commute to more easily from Mississauga, I asked the president of Windsor for help. At 12:01 pm and 12:03 pm on the next business day, I received an email from both schools telling me about their process that I would have to enter for admission in 2024. I was surprised; you think they would have been clever enough to time their emails a little differently. I still did not file a complaint with the HRTO. They are useless.
When I finally found the alternative history of the 2019 Indigenous dialogue report, I filed a complaint with Canadian Human Rights against the province of Ontario. Once again, I was turned away as if signing the constitution and the Charter did not make Ontario a federally registered entity. I was sent back to the HRTO and told to complain to the Canadian Judicial Council. When complaining the CJC I found the CHRC contributed to the 2018 Indigenous dialogue report and the CJC declined to help as the decisions were made by Ontario adjudicates.
So, I sent in a complaint to the HRTO on the CHRC suggestion. It was a complaint against the 3 south western opportunities that I assert colluded to keep me from continuing my studies. Initially, the HRTO accepted the complaint and asked me if I wanted moderation. I agreed. I wanted to continue my studies in the fall of 2025. In July, they changed that offer to a summary dismissal hearing which I could attend if I signed on to a declaration of good intent. I interpreted as a demand that I not publicize the treachery of the HRTO. I had until my anniversary to agree to the additional terms.
I contacted the Human Rights Legal Resource Center before an anniversary trip to understand what the HRTO meant by good faith. From my experience with the body, good faith seemed to be a definition imposed on people who dare question their integrity. I could not reach the body and asked for an extension to the August 20 deadline.
I called from my vacation and spoke to the HRLSC who’s unidentified representative said she might send my case forward to but to call back on August 15 if they do not get back to you. I called on the 15th and did not get a response. I called again on August 19, 2025, to get a clarification on the additional terms imposed on me. They did not respond so I took two hours on my anniversary to not participate in the dismissal hearing. It would be hard not to look at my experience with the HRTO, HRCO and HRLSC and not see bias.
The HRTO had reneged on its promise of mediation. They directed me a dismal process where over 93%+ of all complaints are summarily dismissed, only with extra conditions imposed on me to oppress my experience. I had no interest in engaging in a fraudulent process. I had no expectation of justice.
Two weeks after I abandoned my complaint the HRTO emailed me back giving me a one-week extension they earlier denied me and told me I had to fill out the form to officially dismiss the claim. I have very little time for BS. I gave them the most informal directions in the dismissal form. Then I followed up with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to ask them to reconsider my complaint against Ontario.
For fun, the HRTO emailed me 7:30 AM one morning later in September that they had received my complaint except that this time they were the intended responded, and per their own rules, they were not supposed to contact me. It felt like another attempt of the HRTO to rattle me so they could demonstrate the full understanding of DARVO.
What do I think of the Human Rights Institutions in Canada. I was foolish to get involved. I should have moved as soon as I could in 2009 when the Newfie Joke was made. If anyone is ever discriminated against at work, they cannot rely on the process under the Ford government to give their any protections for their falsely promised rights. If the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Renu Mandhane can find conditionality in the university declaration of the Charter of Rights, with input from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, then the Charter is meaningless.
For me, if you cannot defend the Charter, if you cannot defend the shared morality of Canadians, then you are unworthy of any public position in Canada. If you look away when you are paid to prevent injustice, than you committing fraud since you are taking money for a position that you are unwilling to perform.
But more than anything, if you cower or look away when essential freedoms of Canadian “democracy” are obfuscated for political purposes, then how can you convince me that Canadian citizenship has any value. As a non-citizen residing in Ontario, where my rights can be limited at any time by more Indigenous Ontario First Nations, maybe there are alternatives outside of the dominion worthy of exploring.
As for me, I do not feel the need to put O in front of Canada on most days. The letter substitution is obvious. Are you shocked? Well, wait until court representatives make their bones by playing keep away with your rights. I think you would understand.
