Bhadauria v. Board of Education of Toronto (City), (1992) 54 O.A.C. 359 (DC)

• Judge: Callaghan, C.J.O.C., Hartt and Montgomery, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 20, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1992), 54 O.A.C. 359 (DC)

Bhadauria v. Toronto School Bd. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 359 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of a Complaint by Jagdish Bhadauria and the Ontario Human Rights Commission against the Hiring Practices and Procedures of the Toronto Board of Education for the City of Toronto;

And In The Matter Of an Appeal pursuant to s. 41 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, S.O. 1981, c. 53.

Jagdish Bhadauria (appellant/complainant) v. The Toronto Board of Education for the City of Toronto (respondent/respondent)

(No. 465/90)

Indexed As: Bhadauria v. Board of Education of Toronto (City)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Callaghan, C.J.O.C., Hartt and Montgomery, JJ.

February 20, 1992.

Summary:

Bhadauria complained of discrimination in his unsuccessful attempts at a vice-principal position in the Toronto Board of Education. A Board of Inquiry appointed under the Human Rights Code dismissed the com­plaint. Bhadauria appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 983

Discrimination - Employment - What constitutes discrimination - Bhadauria was a South Asian teacher who complained of constructive discrimination in 39 unsuc­cessful attempts to become a vice-princi­pal with the Toronto Board of Education - Bhadauria claimed the structured interview and the selection process generally dis­criminated against him contrary to ss. 4(1) and 10 of the Ontario Human Rights Code - A Board of Inquiry dismissed the com­plaint - The Ontario Divisional Court affirmed the Board's decision - There was evidence to support the Board's finding that the structured interview and criteria for selection were objectively related to the successful performance of the responsibil­ities of vice-principal.

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights Code, S.O. 1981, c. 53, sect. 4(1) [para. 4]; sect. 10 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Raj Anand, for the appellant;

John P. Bell and J. Paul R. Howard, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 18, 1992, before Callaghan, C.J.O.C., Hartt and Montgomery, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The judgment of the Divisional Court was delivered orally by the Court and released on February 20, 1992.