HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ouliana Baisa
Applicant
-and-
Skills for Change and Nelson Briceno
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Baisa v. Skills for Change
AppearanceS BY
Ouliana Baisa, Applicant ) On her own behalf
Skills for Change and Nelson Briceno, ) Soma Ray-Ellis, Counsel
Respondents )
1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), dated May 25, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on June 22, 2007.
2The applicant alleges that she experienced discrimination and harassment in employment because of her ethnic origin, family status, marital status and sex as a result of the personal respondent’s comments and conduct in the workplace and management’s failure to properly respond to her complaint about the personal respondent, contrary to ss. 5 and 9 of the Code. The applicant further alleges that she experienced reprisals as a result of making her complaint about the personal respondent, contrary to ss. 8 and 9 of the Code, which consist of unilateral changes to her employment contract, the initial denial of her request for flex time, the post-complaint conduct of the personal respondent, the termination of her employment, and the loss of a contract with the Toronto Catholic District School Board.
3The hearing in this matter was held on January 19, February 23 and March 9, 2010 in accordance with the expectation, expressed in the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications, that section 53 applications proceed in an expeditious manner. On consent of all parties, I took the lead in questioning the witnesses and heard from the applicant, the personal respondents and seven other witnesses.
Background
4Skills for Change is a community-based, non-profit, charitable organization, that provides language training, skills upgrading and employment preparation programs for immigrants and refugees.
5The applicant was employed as a Resource Officer at Skills for Change, providing direct service to clients and organizing and presenting workshops. Her employment with the corporate respondent was terminated on February 16, 2007.
6Jane Cullingworth is the corporate respondent’s Executive Director and has been in that position since September 2005. Prior to that, she had been employed as a Programs and Services Manager for the corporate respondent for two years. Ms. Cullingworth had been named as a personal respondent to the Application, but she was removed as a party to this proceeding at the request of the respondents at the hearing of this matter and the title of proceeding has been amended accordingly.
7The personal respondent, Nelson Briceno works for the corporate respondent as an Employment Advisor and was one of the applicant’s co-workers. He remains employed with the corporate respondent.
Scope of Application and Delay
a) Allegations against Mr. Briceno from 2003 and 2005
8In May 2003, the applicant raised issues with her supervisor and with Mr. Briceno regarding his behaviour. In particular, she provided a letter to Mr. Briceno dated May 15, 2003 setting out certain types of behaviours that she states were a source of distress for her. While this letter identifies certain types of behaviours, it does not describe any specific incidents or events where Mr. Briceno is alleged to have engaged in these types of behaviours. At the hearing, I questioned the applicant in an effort to obtain any evidence she might have regarding specific incidents or events where Mr. Briceno was alleged to have engaged in these types of behaviours, and with one exception she was unable to provide me with any specifics or particulars. The one exception was a comment that Mr. Briceno is alleged to have made sometime in 2003 about a female client smelling like a fish, with reference to this client’s private parts.
9The applicant’s evidence is that she became pregnant in June 2003 and that once she was visibly pregnant, Mr. Briceno became nicer to her. She states that if Mr. Briceno’s behaviour continued when she was visibly pregnant, she stopped noticing. Her evidence is that the time of her pregnancy was the happiest time of her life and Mr. Briceno was not “sticking” to her. She states that she cannot say for sure that Mr. Briceno’s behaviour stopped 100%, but it was as if she was impenetrable.
10The applicant commenced her pregnancy leave in February 2004 and returned to work on March 1, 2005.
11On October 26, 2005, the applicant sent a further letter to Mr. Briceno stating that on several occasions over the previous three weeks, when there was a need to talk to him, Mr. Briceno would either pretend not to hear her or walk away from her. Her letter states that Mr. Briceno’s behaviour was impacting negatively on her work flow and the team, and she was open to suggestions to resolve the matter. In her evidence at the hearing, the applicant could not remember what was happening that led her to write this letter.
12The respondents objected to this evidence on the basis that it was outside of the scope of the complaint and due to delay.
13Pursuant to s. 53(5) of the Code, an application filed under this provision must be based upon the subject-matter of the complaint filed with the Commission. The complaint filed with the Commission does not contain any specific reference to the allegations against Mr. Briceno from 2003 or 2005.
14In addition, I am concerned not only with the passage of time since these events occurred, but also with the applicant’s inability to provide any specifics or particulars of virtually all of the events or incidents where Mr. Briceno is alleged to have engaged in conduct in violation of the Code.
15Section 34(1) of the Code requires that an application be filed within one year of the incident that is alleged to form the basis for a Code violation or within one year of the last incident if there is a series of incidents. For transitional application, this Tribunal has interpreted the one year period referenced in s. 34(1) to run from the time that the underlying complaint was filed.
16With regard to this Tribunal’s interpretation of what constitutes a “series of incidents”, this Tribunal has held that where there is a gap of longer than one year between incidents, events preceding such a gap will not usually be considered as part of the series: see Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1225 at para. 11.
17In the instant case, the events which led to the applicant’s letter to Mr. Briceno dated May 15, 2003 preceded the filing of her complaint by over four years. Her evidence also is that Mr. Briceno became nicer to her after she became pregnant in June 2003 or that at least she was not aware of any continued behaviours on his part after that time. The applicant was out of the workplace from February 2004 to March 2005, and there is no specific evidence of any further issue between the applicant and Mr. Briceno until late October 2005, which is a gap of almost two and a half years since the May 15, 2003 letter. In these circumstances, given the lengthy gap in time, I do not find that the behaviours described in the May 15, 2003 letter form part of a “series of incidents” within the meaning of s. 34(1) of the Code.
18Nor do I find that the applicant has provided any justification for her delay of over four years from the time of the issues that led to the May 15, 2003 letter until she filed her complaint in June 2007. As a result, I do not find that the delay in raising these allegations was incurred in good faith, as that phrase has been interpreted by this Tribunal as requiring a justifiable explanation for the delay: see Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241; Cartier v. Northeast Mental Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 1670.
19With regard to the allegations raised in the October 26, 2005 letter, in the absence of any evidence from the applicant as to the specific incident or event which gave rise to this letter, I find that there is no proper basis upon which I can proceed to consider these allegations.
20Accordingly, at the hearing, I ruled that I would not consider the events from 2003 or 2005 in relation to allegations against Mr. Briceno as being both beyond the scope of the complaint as filed with the Commission and on the basis of delay.
b) Use of vacation credits in February 2004
21In her complaint as filed with the Commission, the applicant raised an issue about being hospitalized in February 2004 at the end of her third trimester. She states that she provided a medical note to use her sick days benefit, but instead was required to use vacation days to cover her time off. The applicant’s complaint states that “at the time I did not perceive that as discrimination, but the events that transpired after that date have led me to consider everything just in such light”. The next incident referenced in her complaint is an incident that occurred in August 2006 which resulted in the applicant filing an internal complaint with her employer.
22Once again, there is a delay of almost three and a half years from the time of the issue in February 2004 before the applicant’s complaint was filed with the Commission. As discussed above, I do not find that the February 2004 issue was part of a “series of incidents” within the meaning of s. 34(1) of the Code, both because of the gap of two and a half years before the next incident cited in her complaint and because of the difference in nature between the issue from February 2004 and the subsequent issues raised in the applicant’s complaint. The issue from February 2004 relates to a pregnant employee’s entitlement to use sick benefits as opposed to vacation days for a pregnancy-related illness. The subsequent issues relate to an allegation that the applicant experienced reprisal as a result of the filing of her internal complaint in August 2006. In my view, in order to constitute a “series of incidents” within the meaning of s. 34(1) of the Code, there must at least be some connection or nexus between the incidents that are alleged to form the series, and a series cannot be comprised of incidents relating to discrete and separate issues.
23In addition, I find that the applicant has not provided any justification for her delay of almost three and a half years in filing her complaint in relation to the February 2004 issue, such that I find that the delay was not incurred in good faith within the meaning of s. 34(1) of the Code. Accordingly, I ruled at the hearing that I would not consider the applicant’s allegation relating to the February 2004 issue.
Harassment Allegations against Mr. Briceno
24On August 3, 2006, the applicant sent an e-mail to her supervisor and to the Executive Director to raise an incident on that day when Mr. Briceno is alleged to have hit her three times with a package of dough. The applicant states in her e-mail that although the incident wasn’t hazardous to her health in any way, she felt quite humiliated. To demonstrate the attempts she had made in the past to better relations between herself and Mr. Briceno, the applicant attached her communications from May 2003 and October 2005. The e-mail states that because the applicant was unable to achieve anything previously, she was turning the matter over to upper management.
25The Executive Director and the applicant’s supervisor met with the applicant on September 12, 2006. At this meeting, the applicant provided further details of her allegations about Mr. Briceno’s comments and conduct. Management’s notes of this meeting were produced into evidence at the hearing and were reviewed with the applicant. A number of issues and concerns about Mr. Briceno’s behaviour were raised by the applicant at this meeting, some of which give rise to allegations of a potential violation of the Code and others which raise issues and concerns related to Mr. Briceno’s work performance. In order to differentiate between alleged Code violations, which are within my jurisdiction, and performance-related concerns, which are not, I carefully reviewed with the applicant the issues raised by her at the September 12, 2006 meeting to get her to identify which issues she was alleging gave rise to a potential violation of the Code and which issues were performance-related concerns which did not give rise to a Code violation. In this decision, I will address only those issues raised by the applicant which she alleges give rise to a potential violation of the Code.
a) Comments relating to gender and marital status
26At the September 12, 2006 meeting, the applicant stated that within the last two months, Mr. Briceno had made a statement that a “motherfucker” was needed because there were so many single mothers out there. In her evidence at the hearing, the applicant states that Mr. Briceno was laughing and said that now the applicant fell into this category as a single mother, as the applicant was going through divorce proceedings at the time. The applicant’s evidence is that Mr. Briceno subsequently tried to make the same comment in front of another female co-worker, but she stopped him before he could repeat the comment. Mr. Briceno denies making this comment.
27At the hearing, I heard evidence from a witness who was a male co-worker of the applicant and Mr. Briceno, who testified that the applicant told him about this comment. This witness had filed his own internal complaint regarding Mr. Briceno’s conduct on August 23, 2006, which includes the following statement: “within the past several days, [the applicant] has told me that [Mr. Briceno] has ‘joked’ to her to the effect that since she is now a single mother she needs to find a ‘motherfucker’ ([the applicant] said that [Mr. Briceno] used this word specifically)”. This witness’ complaint states that the applicant told him that a female co-worker was also present when Mr. Briceno was “joking” in this way, which conflicts with the applicant’s evidence that she stopped Mr. Briceno before he could repeat the comment. The female co-worker, who also testified before me, states that she did not hear Mr. Briceno make a comment of this nature.
28The male co-worker’s internal complaint also states that several months previously, Mr. Briceno had told the co-worker that the applicant wanted him to provide artificial insemination for her, and that within the previous few days the applicant confirmed to the co-worker that she knew Mr. Briceno had said this. I also heard evidence directly from the applicant that Mr. Briceno had said this to her, although this evidence was given only after I had heard from the witness. Mr. Briceno denies making this comment either to the witness or to the applicant.
29The witness’ internal complaint further states that within the previous several weeks, he told Mr. Briceno that he was practising the piano at a friend’s house and that in front of a female co-worker, Mr. Briceno “made extended jokes about [the witness] with sexual innuendo about [the witness] playing with [his] organ”. Mr. Briceno acknowledges making this comment. The applicant was not present when Mr. Briceno made this comment and this last comment does not form part of the allegations raised by the applicant in this proceeding. However, in my view, this evidence is relevant to my assessment of credibility.
30The respondents urged me to accept Mr. Briceno’s evidence on the basis that the applicant was not a credible witness and also because Mr. Briceno had admitted to making the “organ” comment to the male co-worker who had filed the internal complaint. It was submitted that I should prefer Mr. Briceno’s evidence on the basis that he had admitted to one inappropriate comment, from which I was asked to conclude that if he had made the other comments, he would have admitted to them as well.
31I do not accept this submission. I note that I have direct evidence from the male co-worker that Mr. Briceno had made the comment about him artificially inseminating the applicant, which is a comment that Mr. Briceno denies. This witness is still employed by the corporate respondent and gave evidence that after he had filed his internal complaint, he was invited by Mr. Briceno to discuss the matter and they repaired their differences and have had no further issues. I found this witness to be entirely credible. Not only does he have no reason not to tell the truth before me, he would appear to have every reason to downplay the comment he states was made to him by Mr. Briceno. Yet he did not do so, and stood by what he had reported in his internal complaint.
32While I agree that this witness’ evidence that the applicant told him about the “motherfucker” comment is hearsay evidence, I do have the discretion to admit hearsay evidence in this proceeding, particularly where it is not the only evidence on the point and is merely supportive of the applicant’s own direct testimony. I find that this witness’ evidence that the applicant told him about the “motherfucker” comment independently of her reporting this comment to management on September 12, 2006 lends credence to her evidence that this comment was in fact made by Mr. Briceno. I also find that Mr. Briceno’s “jokes” about the witness artificially inseminating the applicant and about the witness’ “organ” support that he more likely than not made the “motherfucker” comment, as these are all misguided and inappropriate attempts at crude and sexualized workplace humour.
33Accordingly, I find that Mr. Briceno did make a comment to the applicant sometime in the summer of 2006 to the effect that a “motherfucker” was needed because there were so many single mothers out there and that the applicant fell into this category as a single mother. I further find that Mr. Briceno made a comment both to the applicant and a male co-worker that the applicant wanted this co-worker to provide artificial insemination for her.
b) Comments relating to ethnic origin
34The applicant is of Ukrainian origin. At her meeting with management on September 12, 2006, the applicant reported that Mr. Briceno had made various comments about persons of Ukrainian origin, including that Ukrainians are very strict, that Ukrainian men are ugly, a comment that implied that Ukrainians were Nazis, and a comment that the next time he meets a Ukrainian he will run away.
35At the hearing, I questioned the applicant to obtain her evidence regarding the specific context or incidents when Mr. Briceno is alleged to have made any of these comments. While the applicant stood by her evidence that Mr. Briceno had said these things, she could not recall the specific context or incident when any of these comments are alleged to have been made. With regard to the alleged comment about Ukrainians being close to Nazis, the applicant’s best evidence was that she guessed that this comment could have been instigated by her making a suggestion that would mean more work for the other employees. With regard to the alleged comment about Ukrainians being very strict, the applicant’s best evidence was that this comment could have been related to the volume of work and her concern about Mr. Briceno “disappearing” at the workplace, but she couldn’t be sure. No context or surrounding circumstances could be provided for the other alleged comments.
36Mr. Briceno denies making any of these comments. In addition, I heard evidence from three other employees who worked with both Mr. Briceno and the applicant at the relevant time, and none of them had heard Mr. Briceno make any such comments.
37In these circumstances, I find that I do not have any sufficiently particularized evidence to support a finding that Mr. Briceno made comments of this nature. While the applicant may feel certain in her own mind that Mr. Briceno said these things, it is unfair in the context of a legal proceeding to require Mr. Briceno to respond to allegations of this generalized nature without any information as to the specific context or incident where he is alleged to have made any of these comments.
c) The dough incident
38Mr. Briceno runs a workshop called “Laugh or Go Bananas” in which he uses soft dough wrapped in plastic for a stress release exercise during which clients slam the dough on a cutting board and make statements to release tension.
39The applicant’s evidence is that she was working at a computer station on the morning of August 3, 2006 when Mr. Briceno and a female co-worker came upstairs. She testified that as she was working, Mr. Briceno came up behind her and hit her twice on her upper arm with the dough. The applicant’s evidence is that Mr. Briceno did this playfully and not maliciously. The applicant states that she said to Mr. Briceno, “what are you doing?”, after which Mr. Briceno hit her on the arm a third time. The applicant states that she told Mr. Briceno that this was wrong on so many levels, at which he started laughing and left. The applicant states that the dough was packaged, so it didn’t make a bruise or stain her clothes, but she says it was unbelievably humiliating and incomprehensible.
40I heard a very different version of this incident from Mr. Briceno and the female co-worker. They both testified that they were preparing for the “Laugh or Go Bananas” seminar, and the applicant asked Mr. Briceno what he used the dough for. Mr. Briceno states that he demonstrated by slamming the dough onto a cutting board. He denies hitting the applicant with the dough. In her reply evidence, the applicant disputes this version of events, stating that the incident did not take place in the work area where Mr. Briceno and the female co-worker testified it did and stating that she had attended the “Laugh or Go Bananas” seminar so she already knew what the dough was used for.
41The respondents dispute the applicant’s credibility in relation to her reporting of this incident on the basis that in her initial e-mail dated August 3, 2006 she stated that she was hit on the “hand”, and at the meeting with management on September 12, 2006 she stated that she was hit on the “forearm”, and at the hearing she stated that she was hit on the “upper arm”. The applicant’s testimony in this regard is that the English she used in her e-mail and at the meeting was her mistranslation of the Ukrainian term for upper arm.
42In my view, it is not necessary for me to resolve the differences in the evidence regarding this incident. Even if I accept the applicant’s version of the incident, and while Mr. Briceno’s conduct may have been childish and annoying, there is no connection or link established in the evidence to any ground of discrimination prohibited by the Code. As a result, I find that this alleged incident does not provide any basis to support a finding of discrimination or harassment because of the applicant’s ethnic origin, family status, marital status or sex as alleged in her complaint.
d) Other issues raised by the applicant
43At the September 12, 2006, the applicant raised various other issues, including that Mr. Briceno would roll his eyes, shake his head and sigh when she was talking to volunteers, that he would refuse to assist her with clients, that he would speak to a co-worker in Spanish so as to exclude the applicant, and that he put a flyer on passive-aggressive behaviour in the applicant’s work mailbox. In her evidence at the hearing, the applicant alleged that Mr. Briceno engaged in these behaviours because of her ethnic origin, family status, marital status and/or sex.
44Mr. Briceno denies engaging in any of these alleged behaviours and these allegations in large part were not supported by the three co-workers who testified as witnesses.
45I am not at all satisfied that the applicant has established on the evidence a link between these alleged behaviours and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. Moreover, while the applicant at times was able to provide a general context in which Mr. Briceno is alleged to have engaged in these behaviours, once again she was unable to provide evidence regarding any specific occasion or incident when she alleges that Mr. Briceno did these things.
46In these circumstances, I find that I do not have any sufficiently particularized evidence to support the applicant’s allegations about these behaviours, and I further find that the applicant has not established that any of these behaviours is related to the prohibited grounds under the Code identified in the applicant’s complaint.
e) Finding arising out of Mr. Briceno’s conduct
47In the end, I have found that the evidence supports that Mr. Briceno made two comments to or about the applicant, namely the “motherfucker” comment and the “artificial insemination” comment. I have not upheld any of the applicant’s other allegations against Mr. Briceno under the Code.
48The next question I will address is whether these two comments amount to a violation of the Code, and if so, on what basis. In my view, these comments amount to harassment in employment in violation of s. 5(2) of the Code on the grounds of sex, martial status and family status. In relation to the four elements that must be proven to constitute “harassment” within the meaning of the Code, I find the following: (1) that by making these two comments within a relatively short period of time in or about the summer of 2006, Mr. Briceno engaged in a “course of conduct”; (2) that these comments were “vexatious” in the sense that they were upsetting to the applicant; (3) that Mr. Briceno ought reasonably to have known that these comments were unwelcome to the applicant; and (4) that these comments related to the applicant’s sex or gender, as well as to her marital status and family status.
49I make this last finding on the following basis. The “motherfucker” comment is a comment that was specifically directed towards the applicant as a woman. It is an offensive and degrading comment which carries the implication, whether intended by Mr. Briceno or not, that women are sexual vessels for men. With regard to the “artificial insemination” comment, this comment also was directed to the applicant specifically as a woman, in relation to the notion that she wanted a specific male co-worker to inseminate her. This comment, again whether intended by Mr. Briceno or not, reduces the applicant as a woman to someone whose purpose and desire is to bear children. In addition, both comments also express views about men who should be doing something to the applicant’s bodily integrity as a woman.
50I also find that these comments are linked to the grounds of marital status and family status cited in the applicant’s complaint. The “mother-fucker” comment is linked expressly both to the applicant’s marital status of being single and her family status of having a child. In addition, I find that the “artificial insemination” comment, given its timing and its inherent message relating to the applicant’s status as a single mother and assumed desire for another child, also is related to the applicant’s marital status and family status. In my view, both comments engage the intersection of gender, martial status and family status as having been directed to and about the applicant as a woman and single mother.
51I further find that the making of these two comments by Mr. Briceno, and the repetition of one of these comments to a male co-worker of the applicant, served to poison the applicant’s work environment, and thereby amounts to discrimination in employment in violation of s. 5(1) of the Code. While these comments were made in a relatively brief period of time and thereafter were not repeated, I find that they are of sufficient seriousness and significance as to have affected the applicant’s workplace, particularly in light of the fact that one of them was also made to a male co-worker and thereby was spread farther into the workplace.
Management’s response to the applicant’s internal complaint
52As previously indicated, the applicant reported the dough incident by e-mail on August 3, 2006 and referenced the prior issues she had raised in May 2003 and October 2005. The re: line of her August 3, 2006 e-mail was “Code of Conduct issue”.
53The corporate respondent has an internal Code of Conduct and a separate Anti-Discrimination Policy. The Executive Director’s evidence is that the applicant’s initial e-mail on August 3, 2006 was treated as an issue arising under the Code of Conduct, both because that was how it had been identified by the applicant and because there was no specific ground of discrimination or harassment identified in the applicant’s e-mail.
54The applicant was away on vacation from August 21 to September 5, 2010. As previously indicated, a second internal complaint was filed by a male co-worker on August 23, 2006, which included information about comments alleged to have been made to or about the applicant which clearly relate to prohibited grounds of discrimination and harassment. It was following receipt of this second internal complaint that management met with the male co-worker on August 30, 2010 and then with the applicant on September 12, 2006. At the September 12, 2006 meeting, management received information from the applicant regarding the full scope of her allegations against Mr. Briceno.
55The Executive Director testified that at the September 12, 2006 meeting, a lot of the focus seemed to be on workplace issues and interpersonal communications. However, there also were some allegations that she states were of concern to her as potentially being in violation of the Anti-Discrimination Policy, including the “motherfucker” comment, the “artificial insemination” comment, and the comments about Ukrainians. The Executive Director also was concerned about the “fish odour” comment, but noted from the meeting that this comment is alleged to have been made some time ago.
56As a result of meeting with applicant and the male co-worker, the Executive Director states that she really felt that management needed to take strong action. Even though it really came down to a couple of comments that Mr. Briceno had been alleged to have made, the Executive Director states that she felt that management needed to be clear with Mr. Briceno that these kinds of comments would not be tolerated and were not appropriate in the workplace. As a result, the Executive Director states that it was management’s decision to treat the matter as a human rights issue under its Anti-Discrimination Policy, because management wanted to make a very strong statement in terms of the action taken.
57The Executive Director and the supervisor met with Mr. Briceno on September 22, 2010 and raised with him the specific comments that he was alleged to have made. Mr. Briceno denied making the alleged comments, except for the “organ” comment.
58The Executive Director states that two messages were delivered to Mr. Briceno in that meeting: first, that there were workplace issues that needed to be addressed and these issues were to be managed by his supervisor; and second, with regard to the unprofessional comments in the workplace, management required Mr. Briceno to attend sensitivity training and made it clear to him that any further inappropriate comments would not be tolerated.
59The Executive Director states that the applicant’s complaint was found to be “partially substantiated” on the basis that there had been inappropriate conduct by Mr. Briceno and it needed to be stopped. She states that even though Mr. Briceno had not acknowledged the comments he was alleged to have made by the applicant, management wanted to take a strong stand and err on the side of human rights.
60The Executive Director states that Mr. Briceno did attend sensitivity training on November 13, 2006, which he confirmed in his evidence and indicated that he found very helpful. She also met with three other employees in the context of getting general information about Mr. Briceno’s conduct in workplace. She states that the over-arching message was that Mr. Briceno was a valued member of the team and innovative in his work, but that he could be a bit of a “jokester” in the workplace. However, the Executive Director states that these employees had noticed that Mr. Briceno’s recent behaviour was more professional, which she identified as positive feedback.
61The Executive Director states that she met with the applicant and the male co-worker separately on November 7, 2006, and obtained confirmation from both of them that the offending behaviour by Mr. Briceno had stopped. The Executive Director recalls that the applicant raised issues at this meeting that appeared to be workplace communication issues that appropriately would be dealt with by her supervisor and not by the Executive Director, but she states that the applicant definitely did not connect these issues to the filing of her complaint against Mr. Briceno.
62In her evidence, the applicant confirmed that since the time she filed her internal complaint, she had not heard any further inappropriate comments by Mr. Briceno and that he had toned down his behaviour at staff meetings and was proper when the supervisor was around. However, the applicant states that Mr. Briceno would not speak to her after she made the complaint, and this had given rise to certain issues (addressed in more detail below). While the Executive Director’s notes of the November 7, 2006 meeting indicate that issues were raised by the applicant about Mr. Briceno’s lack of communication with her, the evidence does not support that she specifically tied this to the filing of her internal complaint.
63Ultimately, the Chair of the corporate respondent’s Board of Directors issued a letter to the applicant dated December 7, 2006 regarding her internal complaint, which was identified as including “concerns about behaviour that could be characterized as sexual harassment such as making sexual innuendos and sexual jokes, and racial harassment”. The letter informs the applicant that her complaint had been found to be “partially substantiated”. The letter further confirmed the Executive Director’s meeting with the applicant on November 7, 2006 and that the applicant had advised that all inappropriate comments had stopped.
64The applicant primarily takes issue with the respondent organization’s response to her internal complaint on the basis that it failed to adhere to certain requirements set out in the organization’s own internal Anti-Discrimination Policy, namely that three people weren’t appointed to investigate her complaint, that the investigation was not completed within 20 days, that no report was prepared, and that her work arrangements weren’t altered, that there was no acknowledgement of Mr. Briceno’s history or interference with her work, that she did not receive updates as to the status of the investigation, and that the frequency and amount of incidents was not taken into consideration.
65In response, the respondent organization notes that the applicant’s internal complaint was not in fact made under its Anti-Discrimination Policy, but was rather made as a Code of Conduct complaint, and that there was nothing on the face of the applicant’s August 3, 2006 e-mail which formed her internal complaint to indicate any issue of discrimination or harassment under the Human Rights Code. It was not until after the applicant’s male co-worker had filed his own internal complaint on August 23, 2006 that the respondent organization became aware of specific issues relating to the applicant that potentially engaged the Code, and management met with the applicant to get her full information on September 12, 2010, shortly after she returned from vacation. I further note the respondent organization’s evidence that it was management’s decision to elevate the applicant’s complaint to be dealt with under both the Code of Conduct and the Anti-Discrimination Policy in light of the subsequent information it received from the male co-worker and thereafter the applicant, and that, as the applicant had not formally filed a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Policy, management used that policy merely as a guide.
66In any event, it is not the role of this Tribunal to consider whether a corporate respondent has complied with every detail of an internal anti-discrimination policy. Rather, the issue for this Tribunal is whether a respondent has complied with its obligation to take reasonable and adequate steps to respond to its awareness of a potential violation of the Code in accordance with the criteria established thereunder.
67In Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, this Tribunal found that a respondent owes a duty to reasonably and adequately respond to an alleged violation of the Code and set out the following three criteria whereby the reasonableness and adequacy of the respondent’s response will be assessed (at para. 59):
(1) Awareness of issues of discrimination/harassment, Policy, Complaint Mechanism and Training: Was there an awareness of issues of discrimination and harassment in the workplace at the time of the incident? Was there a suitable anti-discrimination/harassment policy? Was there a proper complaint mechanism in place? Was adequate training given to management and employees;
(2) Post-Complaint: Seriousness, Promptness, Taking Care of its Employee, Investigation and Action: Once an internal complaint was made, did the employer treat it seriously? Did it deal with the matter promptly and sensitively? Did it reasonably investigate and act; and
(3) Resolution of the Complaint (including providing the Complainant with a Healthy Work Environment) and Communication: Did the employer provide a reasonable resolution in the circumstances? If the complainant chose to return to work, could the employer provide her/him with a healthy, discrimination-free work environment? Did it communicate its findings and actions to the complainant?
68The Tribunal also stated the following (at para. 60):
While the above three elements are of a general nature, their application must retain some flexibility to take into account the unique facts of each case. The standard is one of reasonableness, not correctness or perfection. There may have been several options – all reasonable – open to the employer. The employer need not satisfy each element in every case in order to be judged to have acted reasonably, although that would be the exception rather than the norm. One must look at each element individually and then in the aggregate before passing judgment on whether the employer acted reasonably.
69In my view, the respondent organization satisfied these criteria in relation to its response to the issues raised by the applicant which touched upon potential violations of the Code.
70With regard to the first criterion, the respondent organization did demonstrate an awareness of issues of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and had an anti-discrimination policy and complaint process.
71With regard to the second criterion, once the respondent organization became aware of the specific allegations against Mr. Briceno that touched upon potential violations of the Code, which was only at the time of management’s meeting with the applicant on September 12, 2006, the respondent organization treated the matter seriously, dealt with the matter promptly and sensitively, and took reasonable action in response to the issues raised. Management met with the applicant promptly after becoming aware of information from her male co-worker that indicated potential Code violations involving her, met soon thereafter with Mr. Briceno to ensure that he was aware of the allegations, took action on the basis that Mr. Briceno had made inappropriate comments and required him to take sensitivity training, delivered a clear message to Mr. Briceno that further comments of this nature would not be tolerated, met with co-workers of the applicant and Mr. Briceno to get a better sense of Mr. Briceno’s conduct and how it might be affecting the workplace, and followed up with the applicant and the male co-worker to ensure that the inappropriate Code-related behaviour had stopped.
72While the organizational respondent did not conduct an investigation, in the sense of interviewing witnesses in relation to the specific Code allegations and making findings in relation to these allegations, I accept the Executive Director’s evidence that management regarded the internal complaints of the applicant and the male co-worker to be supportive of each other, and wanted to take strong action on the basis that Mr. Briceno had made inappropriate comments. I also find that the actions taken by the respondent in relation to Mr. Briceno were measured and appropriate to the nature of the allegations raised, and that management took reasonable steps to ensure both that it understood the full scope and extent of the issues by interviewing co-workers and that the Code-related behaviour had stopped. In all of these circumstances, I find that the organizational respondent has satisfied the second criterion.
73In relation to the third criterion, I find that the organizational respondent did provide a reasonable resolution to those aspects of the applicant’s internal complaint which relate to potential Code violations, and communicated its findings to the applicant in the December 7, 2006 letter. While the evidence before me does not indicate that management specifically advised the applicant that Mr. Briceno had been required to undergo sensitivity training, the Executive Director did follow up with the applicant to ensure that the Code-related behaviour had stopped, which demonstrated that management was taking the matter seriously and was committed to ensuring that the Code-related conduct had stopped. While I accept that an employee who makes an internal discrimination or harassment complaint is entitled to be informed in a general way about the actions taken in response to her complaint, I do not believe that such an employee is entitled to know specific details of actions taken against the alleged perpetrator, such as the specific nature of discipline or requirements imposed. The employee’s interest is in knowing that the complaint has been taken seriously, that action has been taken, and that the offending behaviour has stopped. I find that all of these elements were satisfied by the organizational respondent.
74Accordingly, I find that the organizational respondent did not violate its obligation to take reasonable and adequate steps to respond to allegations of potential violations of the Code raised by the applicant.
Reprisal Allegations
a) The August 1, 2006 Contract
75On October 10, 2006, the applicant received an employment contract dated August 1, 2006 relating to the extension of her employment as a Resource Officer at the respondent organization for the period from August 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007. While the applicant took issue with the timing of when she received this contract, I am satisfied on the evidence that it was issued in October 2006 due to the timing of when funding for the position had been received and as a result of challenges being experienced by the organization at that time, and not for any discriminatory reason.
76The contract states that the applicant’s compensation would be pro-rated based upon reduced hours of work from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the basis of 32.5 hours per week as opposed to 35 hours per week. The evidence indicates that the normal start time for the applicant was 8:30 a.m. The contract also states that the applicant’s vacation and sick leave entitlements also would be pro-rated.
77The evidence indicates that prior to the issuance of the contract, the applicant had requested a flex time arrangement whereby she would be permitted to arrive at work at 9:00 a.m. and take only a half hour for lunch. The applicant proposed that she would utilize the other half hour of her lunch period as an unpaid break to cover the period from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. “to regain a work-life balance”.
78The applicant’s request for flex time will be addressed below. The simple fact of the matter is that this request had not been approved at the time the contract was issued. I accept the evidence of the applicant’s supervisor and the Executive Director that the contract was issued on the basis of the applicant’s request for a 9:00 a.m. start time, which would result in a reduction in her weekly hours, and this was the reason that her salary and benefits were pro-rated.
79The contract was subsequently amended so that the applicant’s pay and benefits were based upon a full work week and were not pro-rated, and the applicant was fully compensated for the brief reduction in her pay. I do not find that there is any evidence to support the applicant’s allegation that the contract provided to her in early October 2006 was a reprisal for her having filed an internal complaint against Mr. Briceno. Rather, the evidence indicates that the contract was issued based upon a start time that the applicant had requested and prior to the approval of her flex time request.
b) The Applicant’s Request for Flex Time
80As indicated above, on August 2, 2006, the applicant sent an e-mail to her supervisor making a request for flex time to allow her to start her work day at 9:00 a.m. rather than at 8:30 a.m. primarily due to issues relating to the care of her infant son.
81The evidence of the supervisor and the Executive Director is that this request was not initially approved due to issues relating to the change in location of the program within which the applicant worked and uncertainty as to how the program would operate in the new location to which it was moving around that time. Their evidence was that they wanted to get the program moved and have a little time under their belts to see how things were working out before proceeding to consider the applicant’s request.
82The issue of the applicant’s request for flex time was raised again by her after she received the contract in early October 2006. The applicant raised her concerns by e-mail to the Executive Director and her supervisor dated October 12, 2006. On October 20, 2006, the Executive Director responded to the applicant’s e-mail to indicate that she would be meeting with the applicant’s supervisor the following week to discuss the applicant’s concerns. By letter dated October 27, 2006, the applicant was advised that her request for flex time had been approved and would be reviewed in six months.
83There is no evidence to support the applicant’s allegation that the delay in approving her request for flex time was in reprisal for her complaint against Mr. Briceno. To the contrary, I accept the respondents’ evidence that any brief delay in approving the applicant’s request was due to uncertainty relating to operational requirements around the time of the change in location of the applicant’s program.
c) Mr. Briceno’s conduct following the Applicant’s Internal Complaint
84The applicant alleges that after she filed her internal complaint, Mr. Briceno started sabotaging her ability to work in the workplace and interfering with her work with clients. Although the inappropriate comments stopped, the applicant states that there was no respect communicated to her from Mr. Briceno, and his approach was not cooperative at the workplace.
85The applicant states that Mr. Briceno would not communicate with her, but continued communicating with others. For example, the applicant states that she was responsible for maintaining a calendar of activities, and needed to find out what these activities were from other staff in order to put the calendar together, but she states that Mr. Briceno would not respond to her.
86Another example relates to certain contracts that were prepared by staff. The applicant states that Mr. Briceno told her just before her lunch that she needed to prepare contracts, but she states that he had told another staff member earlier that day that they were running low on contracts. The applicant states that when she talked to Mr. Briceno about why this hadn’t been communicated to her in a timely manner, Mr. Briceno denied this.
87Mr. Briceno’s evidence was that the applicant’s complaint came as a shock to him. He states that after the complaint, he tried to stay away from the applicant and only be around her if other staff were around. He denies that he didn’t respond to the applicant’s requests for information to put into the calendar, and has no recollection of the alleged issue regarding preparation of contracts.
88Three co-workers of the applicant and Mr. Briceno also testified at the hearing. All testified that they were aware at times that the applicant and Mr. Briceno were not speaking with one another, and that there was tension between them in the workplace. One witness testified that she didn’t observe Mr. Briceno not assisting the applicant with clients, but she does recall the applicant complaining to her that Mr. Briceno was not on the floor or covering his position as he should have.
89The applicant states that she raised these issues at her meeting with the Executive Director on November 7, 2006. The Executive Director’s notes of the November 7, 2006 meeting were introduced into evidence at the hearing. These notes indicate that the applicant raised an issue about Mr. Briceno not responding to a client need. In her evidence at the hearing, the applicant could not recall what this issue was, and stated that this was not an allegation of discrimination against Mr. Briceno. The notes record that the applicant raised an issue generally about Mr. Briceno not communicating with her, and that she raised the issue about Mr. Briceno not informing her earlier about the need to prepare contracts, which the applicant is recorded as having described at the meeting as “sabotage”.
90The Executive Director’s notes indicate that there needed to be better communication between the applicant and Mr. Briceno. This is consistent with the Executive Director’s evidence at the hearing that the applicant raised communication issues at the November 7, 2006 meeting that would be appropriately dealt with by her supervisor, not by the Executive Director. The Executive Director also stated in her testimony that the applicant definitely did not connect these issues to the filing of her complaint against Mr. Briceno.
91In my view, the issues raised by the applicant in relation to Mr. Briceno’s conduct following the filing of her internal complaint are similar to and consistent with the kinds of performance-related issues about Mr. Briceno that she raised with management at the September 12, 2006 meeting. I have no doubt that the filing of her internal complaint against Mr. Briceno caused him to be more cautious around her and is likely to have increased the workplace tension between them, but this is a far cry from Mr. Briceno engaging in acts of reprisal or retaliation in violation of the Code. I further find that it was reasonable for management to regard the issues raised by the applicant at the November 7, 2006 meeting to be in relation to communication issues, and not to represent allegations of any further violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code.
92As a result, I find that the evidence does not support the applicant’s allegation that Mr. Briceno’s conduct following the filing of her internal complaint amounted to reprisal in violation of the Code.
d) Termination of the Applicant’s Employment
93The applicant’s employment was terminated by the respondent organization on February 16, 2007. The Executive Director testified at the hearing that the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment was based upon three factors: a longstanding issue relating to the applicant’s lack of punctuality which was not rectified by her despite repeated warnings and setting expectations; inter-personal conflicts with staff which dated back to the start of the applicant’s employment; and an increasing arrogance in raising issues with management to the point where the applicant was considered to be ungovernable.
94The evidence indicates that the applicant’s lack of punctuality had been an issue for some time. The applicant’s official start time was 8:30 a.m., but prior to the approval of her flex time arrangement, the applicant’s lack of punctuality was an issue. This was not seriously disputed by the applicant. Rather, her view was that as long as she made up the time that she was late by taking a shorter lunch or working longer, then there should not be an issue.
95On November 10, 2006, the Executive Director and the applicant’s supervisor met with the applicant to discuss a number of issues, including the applicant’s flex time and her punctuality. By letter dated November 17, 2006, the Executive Director confirmed the discussion at this meeting and stated, “Punctuality has been an ongoing issue with your performance. As stated, you are expected to be at work and ready to work by 9:00 a.m.” (emphasis in original). The letter concluded that any continuation of the lateness and punctuality issue would lead to disciplinary action, and that the applicant was to take her contractual and professional obligation for punctuality seriously.
96The Executive Director’s evidence is that one of management’s concerns about granting the applicant’s request for flex time and a later 9:00 a.m. start was that the lack of punctuality would continue. This was a significant concern as the program was open to the public at 9:00 a.m., and staff needed to be ready to start seeing clients at that time.
97It is noteworthy that the November 10, 2006 meeting was scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m., but the applicant was 15 minutes late for the meeting. This issue was raised in the Executive Director’s letter, and the applicant was told that it was quite unacceptable for her to be late to this meeting.
98Notwithstanding the very clear message delivered in the November 17, 2006 letter, the applicant’s punctuality issues continued. In her performance evaluation, dated January 26, 2007, her supervisor states that the applicant “has yet to arrive at work by 9:00 a.m. Punctuality continues to be a major problem and has been raised as a serious problem on many occasions.” This is supported by a memo to the applicant from her supervisor dated January 11, 2007, which records specific times of arrival in November and December 2006 which show a pattern of regular lateness. By January 11, 2007, by which time there had been a total of eight work days, the applicant already had been late by a total of one hour and 17 minutes, or an average of almost 10 minutes per day.
99The applicant provided extensive employee comments on her evaluation, but did not dispute her continued lack of punctuality. Rather, she identified four factors contributing to her lack of punctuality, including “my own micromanagement, child’s moodiness, father disrupting child’s routine and traffic”. She states in her comments that these are not excuses, but this is her reality and concludes, “Trust me, I am working on things I have influence upon, my punctuality will get better”.
100Remarkably, at the hearing, the applicant continued to be of the view that it was not a problem for her to arrive late for work as long as she made up the time over her lunch or by working later. When asked whether such an arrangement had been approved by management, the applicant’s response was that she had raised this at the November 10, 2006 meeting and management didn’t say yes, but they didn’t say no. In my view, management had made it abundantly clear that the applicant was expected to be not only at work but ready to work by 9:00 a.m. and had expressed this to the applicant in the clearest possible terms, but the applicant was simply unwilling to receive the message.
101With regard to the matter of inter-personal conflicts with other staff, the applicant’s supervisor testified that the applicant’s lack of punctuality was causing morale problems for other workers, because they would be required to deal with clients and other work issues when the applicant was late. This concern was supported by evidence from two of the applicant’s co-workers, not including Mr. Briceno. Mr. Briceno and one other witness also described the applicant as being “bossy” and acting as if she was management rather than simply another employee.
102The applicant’s January 26, 2007 performance appraisal includes the following statements:
Although the past year has been difficult for everyone at the ERC, [the applicant] seems once again to be having particular problems with some of her co-workers. This is of real concern to me because the staff still are not able to resolve conflicts among themselves. She herself notes that her relationships with co-workers can affect her professionalism / leadership and her ability to be a strong, respected member of the team.
[The applicant’s] suggestion for improving the workflow is indicative of the manner that so often gets her into trouble. In her words, she can be “blunt”. She often implies that she is the only one who cares about – and provides decent – customer service and that she is having to carry the load for other staff who lack the skills and competencies that she demonstrates.
103In her comments in response, the applicant takes issue with her manager’s characterization of her conflicts with other staff, and instead ties these conflicts to her complaint against Mr. Briceno and management’s failure to take action to deal with him. I already have reviewed and discussed the evidence regarding management’s response to the Code-related issues raised by the applicant, which is the only matter within my jurisdiction when assessing the reasonableness and adequacy of management’s response. However, I note that at the September 12, 2006 meeting, the applicant raised a whole host of concerns and issues relating to her perception of Mr. Briceno’s work performance which were largely negative and which do not accord with the assessment of Mr. Briceno’s value and contribution to the program provided to the Executive Director by the applicant’s co-workers.
104The applicant’s supervisor was adamant that the applicant’s internal complaint against Mr. Briceno was not a factor in her assessment that the applicant was having problems getting along with co-workers. This does not, however, mean that it was illegitimate for the respondent organization to have considered any issues or conflicts between the applicant and Mr. Briceno. Section 8 of the Code only protects an applicant in relation to seeking to claim and enforce her rights under the Code. In this case, the applicant’s Code-related complaints about Mr. Briceno were coupled with a litany of performance-related concerns and a history of conflict and tension between these two individuals. While there is no doubt that I have found that Mr. Briceno did make two comments to and about the applicant that are in violation of the Code, I do not find that these comments or grounds protected under the Code coloured the entire relationship between the applicant and Mr. Briceno. Rather, I find that there was a clash between these two individuals in their approach to work and workplace style that formed an underlying context in which the comments were made.
105In the end, I find that the applicant’s Code-related complaint against Mr. Briceno was not a factor in her supervisor’s assessment that she had inter-personal conflicts with other staff. I find that there was a conflict between the applicant and Mr. Briceno that pre-dated her complaint and that encompassed a myriad of work-related issues, and I also accept the evidence of the applicant’s supervisor and of her co-workers that the applicant’s conduct in the workplace was creating issues and concerns for other staff.
106The third factor relied upon by the respondent organization in relation to the applicant’s termination is that she had become ungovernable. The Executive Director testified that what management increasingly was seeing was an individual who didn’t seem to think that the rules applied to her or that they applied to her differently than everyone else. The applicant’s approach to the issue of punctuality is an example of this. She had a view that it shouldn’t matter to management if she was late, as long as she was making up the time. It didn’t matter that management made it clear to her that it expected her to arrive at work on time; she was not prepared to hear that message and change her behaviour. Another example relates to the applicant’s request for flex time. Even though her request had not been approved, the applicant felt that she was entitled to arrive at 9:00 a.m. as long as she made up her time and worked 35 hours per week. Such an attitude disregards that it is management which has the right to control when an employee is required to arrive at work.
107The Executive Director also cited an e-mail dated December 6, 2006 that the applicant sent to the respondent organization’s Manager – Accounting & Financial Reporting in relation to the reimbursement rate for travel. The applicant’s response states: “The rate of 0.315 $/km was a sufficient reimbursement for traveling in 19-nineties (that’s previous century). Since then the cost of fuel and insurance went up significantly. The agency, not having its own vehicle, is relying on employees willing to exploit their own cars. Benefiting in such way, it would have been fair of the company to compensate the employees adequately.”
108This e-mail was sent to the entire organization. The applicant states that this was by mistake, as she hit “reply all” instead of just hitting “reply”. However, the applicant acknowledges that it was “not nice” of her to make the reference to the reimbursement rate being appropriate for the last century.
109The Executive Director testified that she received complaints about the applicant’s tone in this e-mail, which were addressed with the applicant. This was confirmed by e-mail dated December 8, 2006, wherein the applicant was told that while the agency was open to receiving feedback, any feedback should be constructive and respectful and the applicant’s communication style in her e-mail was unacceptable.
110The Executive Director testified that this e-mail was an example of rude and disrespectful behaviour being exhibited by the applicant. Another example was the applicant arriving 15 minutes late for the scheduled meeting with the Executive Director and her supervisor on November 10, 2006. The assessment made in light of the pattern of conduct by the applicant was that she was an employee that was increasingly taking up more of management’s time, and was regarded as becoming unmanageable.
111It is not my role in this proceeding to second-guess whether management could have taken different steps to address their concerns about the applicant. The only issue within my jurisdiction is whether or not the applicant has established on the evidence before me and on a balance of probabilities, that the raising by her of Code-related issues against Mr. Briceno was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment. I find that the applicant has not satisfied this burden. Rather, I find that the respondent organization had credible, non-discriminatory reasons for deciding to terminate her employment, and is therefore not in violation of the Code for making this decision.
e) Loss of School Board Contract
112The applicant taught an adult education course for the Toronto Catholic District School Board in English as a Second Language (“ESL”) for Bookkeepers. The course was situated at the premises of the respondent organization.
113On July 20, 2006, the applicant wrote to the school board to request a parental leave of absence from September 12, 2006 to July 19, 2007. This leave was approved, and the applicant was advised that her first instructional day following this leave period would be September 11, 2007.
114On February 27, 2007, the applicant received a letter from the school board advising her that the board had been unable to staff her instructor position during her leave of absence, and as a result the class had been closed. The applicant was advised that accordingly her instructor position had been terminated, and she had been placed on a redundancy list which enabled her to apply for other instructor positions.
115At the hearing, I heard from the former program consultant for the school board who was responsible for this course. This witness testified that the school board was unable to staff the course during the applicant’s leave as it required a very specific skill set. As a result, the class was closed and the applicant was put on the redundancy list. This witness states that while she believes she would have been aware that the applicant’s employment had been terminated, the closing of her class was not discussed with or influenced by the respondents.
116The respondents’ witnesses similarly testified that they played no role in the termination of the applicant’s instructor position.
117In the end, there is simply no evidence to support the applicant’s allegation that the respondents engaged in reprisal against her by playing some role in the termination of her instructor position with the school board.
Remedy and Next Steps
118In the end, I have found that two comments made by Mr. Briceno amount to harassment in employment because of sex, martial status and family status in violation of s. 5(2) of the Code, and created a poisoned work environment in violation of s. 5(1) of the Code. All of the other allegations raised by the applicant are dismissed.
119In terms of remedy, the only individual remedy that flows from my finding is an award of compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. As I have not found that the termination of the applicant’s employment was in violation of the Code, there is no basis to grant her request for an award of lost income. The applicant in her Application also has requested a future compliance or public interest remedy relating to the development of policies and procedures by the respondent organization.
120I did not hear evidence and submissions from the parties in relation to the remedies sought by the applicant. Accordingly, I wish to invite submissions from the parties on the issue of what remedy should flow from the specific violation of the Code I have found, in accordance with the following schedule:
Within two weeks of the date of this decision, the applicant shall serve on the respondents and file with the Tribunal written submissions regarding the remedies she seeks arising out of my specific finding of a violation of the Code;
Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the respondents shall serve and file their submissions in response;
Within five weeks of the date of this decision, the applicant shall serve and file any submissions in reply.
121Should any party believe that an oral hearing is also required for the purposes of submissions on remedy, they shall so state in their submissions.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of July, 2010.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair