Schedule “A”

REPLY

1. This Reply is to be considered globally and is submitted on behalf of all seventy-one

Applicants jointly against the Respondents Fred Hahn, CUPE Local 3906, and CUPE Ontario.

2. The Applicants adamantly oppose the points raised throughout the Respondents’ Responses.

In their totality the arguments are disingenuous, nonsensical, and further reinforce the

antisemitic views held by the Respondents.

3. In particular, the Respondents’ submission that it was “unaware” of the “full scope” of the

terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7th when they posted the discriminatory tweets is

offensively absurd. The terrorist attack was the top global news story and was everywhere.

4. Additionally, the Respondents’ assertion that they are merely engaging in “criticism” of Israel

is offensively absurd. The Respondents have been celebrating the massacre of innocent Jewish

people. Mr. Hahn in particular has been a mainstay at rallies, megaphone in hand, standing

side by side individuals who have been calling for the death of Jewish people. As recently as

the week of April 29, 20204, Mr. Hahn shouted into a microphone at a rally “we will live to

see the end of apartheid Israel!.”

5. Notably, the Respondents’ Responses fail to provide an explanation as to what their singular

focus on Israel has to do with labour relations in Ontario. There is no nexus between what is

happening in the middle east and labour relations in Ontario. The only explanation is that the
 Respondents’ obsessive focus on Israel is indeed founded in antisemitism, as evidenced by the

Respondents’ grotesque and discriminatory actions detailed in the Applications.

6. While all points raised in the Responses are refuted, only those needing explicit clarification

or of a new nature will be addressed below, as per the Rules.

7. Any and all claims raised by the Respondents concerning lack of particularity are

disingenuous. The Applications contain sufficient particulars, as evidenced by the breadth of

the Respondents’ Responses. Finally, at no point have the Respondents requested particulars,

which is demonstrative of the disingenuous nature of the Respondents’ assertion that the

Applications do not contain sufficient particulars.

JURISDICTION

8. Replying first to the jurisdictional arguments raised by the Respondents, and starting with the

argument that a number of the Applicants are not members of CUPE Local 3906, that the Local

of a smaller number of the Applicants is not affiliated with CUPE Ontario, and that none of

the Applicants are “members” of CUPE Ontario due to their affiliation structure, and therefore

that the affected Applicants could not have been discriminated against by CUPE Local 3906

or CUPE Ontario under Section 6 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19,

as amended (the “Code”) - the Applicants plead that their individual membership status is not

relevant to the extent suggested by the Applicants.

9. The October 7, 2023, post by CUPE Local 3906, the October 8, 2023, post by CUPE Ontario

President Fred Hahn, and their follow up statements, were posted purporting to use the voice

of all CUPE members in Ontario. At no time were these posts or statements limited to those

select members of CUPE Local 3906 or the affiliate locals of CUPE Ontario, and even if they

were, the public and even many CUPE members are unaware of what locals or organizations

each member belongs to. The Applicants’ view themselves as CUPE members generally and

perceived the October 7 and 8 posts and the follow up content discussed in the Applications

and Responses as discriminatory and also falsely giving the perception that these

discriminatory statements were being made on behalf of all CUPE members. The Applicants

and many other CUPE members were horrified by these social media posts and comments.

10. With respect to the argument that Section 6 of the Code is not the appropriate section to address

the complaints raised - as the Respondents argue that Fred Hahn and CUPE Ontario are not

“Trade Unions”. Fred Hahn is subject to Section 46.3 of the Code, which deems any act done

or omitted in the course of his position as the President of CUPE Ontario is an act done or

omitted by CUPE Ontario.

11. With respect to the Respondents’ argument that Section 46.3 of the Code shields Fred Hahn

from personal liability for his discrimination, this Tribunal and the Ontario Superior Court of

Justice have previously held in numerous decisions that Section 46.3 is not intended to shield

officers, officials, employees or agents from individual liability but solely to codify that

corporations, trade unions, trade or occupational associations, unincorporated associations and

 employers’ organizations are vicariously liable for their officers, officials, employees and

agents actions.

12. With respect to the argument that CUPE Ontario is not a “trade union” and therefore not liable

under section 6 of the Code, the Applicants contest this position. In their Response, the

Respondents’ describe CUPE Ontario as “the political wing” of CUPE National. The reality is

that CUPE Ontario is indeed a trade union and even describes itself as such on its website as

“Ontario’s Community Union”. On its website, CUPE Ontario purports to represent 290,000

CUPE members and boats that the “vast majority” of locals in Ontario have “chosen” to

affiliate with them. Of course, individual members of CUPE locals have no choice if their

locals join CUPE Ontario. The leadership of CUPE Ontario, including Mr. Hahn, are elected

by delegates selected by member locals. In its communications, advocacy, and website, CUPE

Ontario makes it appear as though it represents all CUPE workers and doesn't make any

distinction who it purports to represent and who it purports to not represent. When Mr. Hahn

attends hate rallies chanting antisemitism, he is often waiving CUPE flags and purporting to

speak on behalf of CUPE.

13. In the alternative, if it is found that CUPE Ontario is not a “trade union” for the purpose of the

Code, CUPE Ontario should fall under the definition of a “trade association” which is also

covered by section 6. As a “trade association” their actions would fall under section 6 of the

Code entirely.
14. In the further alternative, this Tribunal has allowed applicants to amend their Applications to

include the social area of “goods, services and facilities” under section 1 of the Code when an

applicant has failed to meet the requirements under section 6. The Applicants request leave to

do so if this Tribunal determines that CUPE Ontario is not a “trade union” or a “trade

association” for the purpose of section 6 of the Code.

15. In reply to the argument that the issues raised in the Applications are related to political, social,

and academic debate or discussion and therefore are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal,

the Applicant’s disagree with the Respondents’ interpretation of the case law. The Applicants

submit that the Tribunal has stated that political opinions in dispute can act as a proxy for a

Code ground. However, in this case, the Respondents’ have made blatantly antisemitic

comments and have advanced blatantly antisemitic positions.

16. The Respondents are shamelessly and transparently attempting to hide behind a veil of political

speech. The anti-Israel and anti-Zionist rhetoric espoused by the Respondents is discriminatory

against the Applicants based on the grounds listed in the Applications. Their “debates” have

been nothing but an outrageous and hurtful proxy for antisemitic discrimination.

17. In response to the timeliness argument, the Applicants have established a series of incidents

that illustrate an ongoing pattern of fresh steps taken by the Respondents, each giving rise to

separate breaches of the Code, that are all of a similar nature and character and culminate in

multiple timely breaches in October of 2023. Further, the breaches are still ongoing and have
 not ceased and continue to-date. The Respondents have continued to double-down on their

discrimination even after the within Applications were filed.

18. With respect to the argument that the Applicants' allegations fall into two different categories

- Israel is widely known and considered to be a Jewish Nation and homeland, and its wellbeing,

acceptance, and portrayal in the media is inextricably tied to Jewish identity around the globe.

Following from that, condemnation of, attacks on, discrimination and hate speech towards the

State of Israel are all considered and condemned as antisemitic. The political and cultural

wellbeing of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement to protect Israel as a Jewish homeland,

and Jewish identity cannot and should not be compartmentalized. The Respondents’ attempt

to “legitimize” their discrimination under the false guise of “criticism against Israel” is part of

their dog-whistle campaign of antisemitism against Jewish CUPE members.

19. While some of the incidents plead are separated by a gap of year or more, those incidents were

not brought before the Human Rights Tribunal at the time they occurred because the Applicants

spent years trying to utilize the Respondents’ internal procedures to right the wrongs they were

suffering. These gaps only occurred because the Applicants attempted in good faith to follow

the Respondents’ internal processes to address the discrimination - only to be ignored,

intimidated, silenced and gaslit.

20. In response to the Respondents’ assertion that the Applications are an abuse of process, the

Applicants respond as follows. Simply because the Respondents are a “democratically” run

organization does not mean they get to use their organizational structure as a scapegoat for
 their antisemitic, discriminatory policies and outreach. The elected officials of CUPE have a

duty to ensure the minority members of their organization are not being discriminated against

by the majority, of which they have failed.

21. Further, if the Respondents wish to rely on democratic will to justify their actions, both the

democratically elected Canadian and Ontario governments, both of whom the Respondents are

subject to, have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”)

working definition of Antisemitism, of which the Respondents are in clear violation.

CUPE LOCAL 3906

22. With respect to the specific actions of CUPE Local 3906 and the discriminatory post of October

7, 2023. The Respondents argue that their history of supporting Palestinian resistance,

including movements like the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement (the “BDS

Movement”), creates a context through which their October 7, 2023, post should be viewed.

Additionally, they argue that the context just discussed, paired with the timing of the post and

the quoted video / text included with it, all support the understanding that the October 7, 2023,

post was a statement in support of Palestinian freedom and not a discriminatory act.

23. This is a ludicrous argument and offensive to the Applicants. No one viewed that post through

the “context lens” fabricated by the Respondents in their Response. The post was

discriminatory and was designed to be deeply offensive, which it was, to many. The post

celebrated the “resistance”, which was meant to celebrate the massacre and rape of innocent
 Jewish civilians - many of whom were children. The Respondents only removed this grotesque

and discriminatory tweet after a massive amount of public blowback.

24. The Respondents’ argument disturbingly illustrates just how deeply ingrained the

Respondents’ antisemitic thought process is. For starters, the BDS Movement is inherently

antisemitic. It singularly criticizes the State of Israel and it is this singling out of Israel that

places their actions within the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism. Additionally, if all

of the stated goals of the BDS Movement were allowed the State of Israel, the Jewish state,

would be eradicated.

25. As for the applicability of the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism, the IHRA definition

does not assert that all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic, as the Respondents suggest. Rather,

the IHRA working definition of antisemitism states that criticisms of Israel similar to those

leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. It is the singling out of the

State of Israel that is problematic.

26. The historic context of CUPE Local 3906’s actions only stand to further the Applicants’

argument that the October 7, 2023, post was discriminatory and intentionally malicious. The

post was a boiling over point after a long history of antisemitic actions exhibited by the

Respondents, and their attempt to sanitize their actions is illustrative of the antisemitism that

is so deeply ingrained with the Respondents.

27. The Respondents’ argument that when they posted the October 7, 2023, post the Hamas attack

had not yet been widely reported is preposterous.

28. The Respondents’ arguments concerning their actions “after” they discovered their post was

being read in the context of the Hamas attack is irrelevant for two reasons.

29. First, the Respondents’ intent is irrelevant in the determination of whether the Applicants have

been discriminated against. The fact that the Respondents took down the October 7, 2023, post

simply shows that they themselves realized it was discriminatory and hurtful.

30. Second, the follow-up post of October 10, 2023, further illustrates the antisemitic mindset of

the Respondents as it does not attempt to apologize for their actions but instead tries to justify

them by further condemning Israel.

FRED HAHN

31. In response to the arguments made by the Respondents with respect to Fred Hahn’s post of

October 8, 2023, the Applicants find it disingenuous to suggest that it was a coincidence that

Fred Hahn posted about “celebrating resistance” the day after monumental events occurred in

relation to a “cause” that the Respondents themselves have admitted CUPE has been involved

in and watching for years. The idea that Fred Hahn could have been posting about anything

other than the Hamas attack from the day prior, which was international news at the time, is

folly and offensive.

32. Regarding the Instagram post of October 8, 2023, containing the text “From the river to the

sea, Palestine will be free”, that text is inherently discriminatory and calls for Israel’s

destruction. Calling for the elimination of the Jewish state, or suggesting that the Jews alone

do not have the right to self-determination, is antisemitic.

33. The “apology” posts of October 11, 2023, and October 21, 2023, are problematic at best. Fred

Hahn eventually “condemned” the Hamas attack in the October 21, 2023 post, however it is

absurd it took him two (2) weeks to post this. Additionally, despite the supposed apologetic

nature of these posts, Fred Hahn could not help himself but further criticize the State of Israel

throughout them. Using language like “disproportionate retribution” to describe Israel’s

defensive tactics against the Hamas attack show the continuing antisemitic undertones of these

“apologies''. And of course, since posting these, Fred Hahn has continued his antisemitism,

illustrating just how disingenuous his apologies were.

34. In response to the arguments raised concerning the webinar that occurred on November 20,

2021, it was Fred Hahn’s involvement in the webinar that the Applicants found discriminatory.

His open and public support as the President of CUPE Ontario for the BDS Movement is what

the Applicants took and take issue with, for the reasons outlined above.

CUPE ONTARIO

35. The arguments made above concerning the BDS Movement equally apply in response to the

arguments made by the Respondents regarding the actions of CUPE Ontario.

36. Regarding the Respondents argument for the use of the term “ethnic cleansing”, just because

the term may be widely used does not mean the term is not discriminatory when referring to

the actions of the State of Israel. Many well recognized and agreed upon discriminatory words

were once widely used.

37. Regarding the Respondents argument concerning Emergency Resolution No. 1, asserting that

Israel is illegally occupying Palestine is antisemitic as such an assertion fails to consider the

historic context of that land and its importance to the Jewish people.

38. The arguments made above concerning the IHRA working definition of antisemitism equally

apply in response to the arguments made by the Respondents regarding the actions of CUPE

Ontario and the passing of Resolution No. 24.

CONCLUSION

39. For the reasons stated above, the Applicants request their complaints proceed as intended.

40. While only new issues and those requiring extensive clarification were addressed above, as

pursuant to the Rules, the Applicants deny all the defenses raised and allegations made in the

Respondents seventy-one nearly identical Responses.