该大学并不是缔约国和联邦或省级政府的属下机构。
The university is not part of the State party's federal or provincial government.
1984年8月，在他提出晋升正教授职位的申请之后，大学晋升审查委员会收到并审议了提交人系里对他持批评态度的其他教授自发寄出的两封信。
In August 1984, after having applied for promotion to a full tenure professorship, a university promotions committee received and considered two unsolicited letters from other professors of the author's faculty that were critical of him.
1984年9月，另一个晋升审查委员会将两封信从档案中删除，但是却显然违反程序地私下听取了提交人系主任关于提交人申请的见解，而并没有向提交人本人公开系主任谈话的内容，也没有允许他对此作出答复的机会。
In September 1984, a further university promotions committee withdrew the letters from the file, but in apparent violation of its procedures heard in camera representations by the Chair of the author's faculty about the author's application, without disclosing those representations to him or allowing him an opportunity to respond.
1984年12月，委员会建议延迟提交人的晋升申请，1985年11月，大学校长接受了这项建议。
In December 1984, the Committee recommended that the author's application for promotion be delayed, and, in November 1985, the university's president accepted this recommendation.
2.2 1989年7月，提交人向安大略人权委员会提出申诉，他指称，由于他的种族、族裔血统、信仰和社会关系，他在就业方面不受歧视和骚扰获得平等待遇的权利受到侵犯，这违反了1981年《安大略人权法典》(下称《安大略法典》)。
2.2 In July 1989, the author complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, alleging that his right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination and harassment had been infringed because of his race, ethnic origin, creed and association, in contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981 (henceforth “the Ontario Code”).
1 他说，他系里某些人认为，他是反犹太主义者，而他在相关时候提出以色列在解决巴勒斯坦问题方面未尽全力的政治意见，加之其他事实，包括他的种族、族裔血统和宗教的问题，都消极影响其在就业方面获得平等待遇权利，而特别是影响到他晋升为正教授的申请。
He alleged that certain members of his faculty had come to view him as anti-Semitic, and that his political opinions at the relevant time that Israel could be criticized for not doing more to resolve the Palestinian question, together with other facts, including his race, ethnic origin and religion, became an issue which adversely affected his right to equal treatment in employment, and specifically in his application for promotion to full professor.
1989年12月和1993年5月之间，安大略委员会调查了这一申诉。
Between December 1989 and May 1993, the Commission investigated the complaint.
2.3 该委员会于1994年8月29日驳回了提交人的申诉，认为：(一) 尽管证据表明他晋升正教授的申请没有受到公正和及时的评价，但这一过程中的违反规则行为似乎没有涉及任何被禁止的歧视依据；(二) 尽管证据表明他可能受到区别待遇，但是却没有足够的证据表明，这是由于他的信仰而不是他的政治观点造成的，而政治观点并不是《安大略法典》所禁止的一项歧视根据。
2.3 The Commission rejected the author's complaint on 29 August 1994, finding that: (i) while the evidence indicated that his application for promotion to Full Professor did not receive a fair and timely evaluation, the irregularities in the process did not appear to be related to any prohibited ground of discrimination; and (ii) while the evidence indicated that he might have been differently treated, there was insufficient evidence to indicate that this was a result of his creed rather than his political beliefs, the latter not being a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Ontario Code.
该委员会决定不要求任命调查委员会，并驳回了申诉。
The Commission decided not to request the appointment of a Board of Inquiry and dismissed the complaint.
提交人要求委员会重新考虑其决定。
The author requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision.
2.4 1995年5月2日，该委员会维持其原来决定，认为，政治观点并不包含在“信仰”一语的意义之内，而提交人受到其雇主约克大学的任何区别待遇都不是基于信仰或任何其他被禁止的歧视理由。
2.4 On 2 May 1995, the Commission upheld its original decision, holding that political belief is not included in the meaning of the word “creed”, and that whatever differential treatment the author may have received from his employer, York University, was not based on creed or any other prohibited ground of discrimination.
提交人申请对这一决定进行司法审查。
The author applied for judicial review of this decision.
2.5 1995年9月19日，该委员会宣布其本身1995年5月2日的决定无效，依据是，提交人所提出的论据没有得到审议。
2.5 On 19 September 1995, the Commission declared null its decision of 2 May 1995, on the basis that submissions made to it by the author had not been taken into account.
1995年11月29日，委员会宣布了其重新审议之后的第二个决定，再次维持最初决定。
On 29 November 1995, the Commission released its second decision on reconsideration, again upholding the original decision.
委员会再次认为，“政治观点”并不包含在“信仰”一词的含义之内，并认为，提交人所受到的任何区别待遇都不是基于信仰或任何其他受禁止的歧视依据。
It again held that “political belief” is not included in the meaning of the word “creed”, and that whatever differential treatment the author may have received, it was not based on creed or any other prohibited ground of discrimination.
因此，没有足够证据支持改变原先的决定。
There was thus insufficient evidence to warrant a reversal of the original decision.
2.6 提交人向分区法院提出申请，对《安大略法典》中“信仰”一语的解释作为宪法框架的事项进行司法审查，并对《安大略法典》未将“政治意见”作为受禁止的歧视依据包含在内这一情况作为宪法问题进行司法审查。
2.6 The author applied to the Divisional Court for judicial review of the interpretation of the word “creed” in the Ontario Code as a matter of statutory construction, as well as of the constitutional issue concerning the omission of “political opinion” from the Ontario Code as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
1997年4月16日，法院驳回了其申诉，依据是，“信仰”并不包含“政治见解”，而《安大略法典》未包含“政治见解”并不违反《加拿大基本权利和自由宪章》(下称《宪章》)的平等条款。
On 16 April 1997, the Court dismissed the application, on the basis that “creed” did not encompass “political opinion”, and that the omission of “political opinion” from the Ontario Code did not violate the equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (henceforth “the Charter”).
2 提交人遂向安大略上诉法院提出上诉。
The author appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
2.7 1999年6月28日，上诉法院驳回了上诉。
2.7 On 28 June 1999, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
法院认为，提交人就“巴勒斯坦和以色列之间关系的单一问题”所持的个人意见就《安大略法典》而言，并不等同于“信仰”。
It held that the author's personal opinion on the “single issue of the relationship between Palestinians and Israel” did not amount to a “creed” for purposes of the Ontario Code.
根据案情，法院并决定不在宪定依据中加上新的歧视依据，即政治观点，从而将等同于《安大略法典》第5条(1)款列举的依据。
On the facts of the case, the Court also declined to add on constitutional grounds a new ground of discrimination, namely political opinion, analogous to those enumerated in section 5 (1) of the Ontario Code.
2000年5月3日，最高法院拒绝了提交人获特许以提出上诉的申请。
On 3 May 2000, the Supreme Court refused the author's application for leave to appeal.
3.1 提交人声称，由于违反了《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第二十六条，及与第二十六条共同理解的第二条第1款和第2款、第十九条第1款和第五十条，他成为受害者。
3.1 The author claims to be a victim of violations of article 26, and of articles 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, 19, paragraph 1, and 50 taken in conjunction with article 26 of the Covenant.