HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rashmi Dwivedi
Applicant
-and-
Brampton Public Library and Gary Baumbach
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Janice Sandomirsky
Indexed as: Dwivedi v. Brampton Public Library
APPEARANCES
Rashmi Dwivedi, Applicant ) Andrew Pinto and ) Christian Vernon, ) Counsel
Brampton Public Library, Respondent ) Amanda Hunter, ) Counsel
1The applicant in this case, Mrs. Dwivedi, alleges that she was discriminated against when the respondents, the Brampton Public Library and Gary Baumbach, terminated her employment as a Branch Manager on September 14, 2007, during her one year probationary period. She alleges that her race, colour, ethnic origin and place of origin were factors in the termination decision. The applicant also alleges that she was subjected to subtler forms of discrimination by the personal respondent through ongoing differential and undermining conduct during the course of her employment.
2The respondents deny that they discriminated against the applicant. The respondents took the position that, although the applicant was well qualified for the job as Branch Manager, she did not meet the performance expectations for the position and was not successful in her probation. The respondents submit that discriminatory grounds identified by the applicant were not factors in any interaction with the applicant during her employment or in the decision to terminate her employment.
3The Application was filed with the Tribunal on May 5, 2009, under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The underlying human rights complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on March 10, 2008, and abandoned upon the filing of this Application with the Tribunal.
4The hearing was held on August 27, and October 1, 2010, in accordance with the expectation, expressed in the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules, that section 53(5) applications proceed in an expeditious manner. The applicant testified at the hearing, as did the personal respondent, Gary Baumbach, Manager, Circulation and Customer Service, and the applicant’s direct supervisor. The respondents also called Kathy Samson, Customer Service Co-ordinator, as a witness.
BACKGROUND
5The applicant, who self identifies as a South Asian woman, commenced employment as a Branch Manager with the Brampton Public Library on October 23, 2006. The personal respondent was on the hiring committee for the position and interviewed the applicant. The decision to hire her was based on his recommendation. The terms of employment included a one year probationary period. She was terminated on September 14, 2007, with a letter from the employer stating that “we do not feel that you are the best fit for the position and therefore have not passed the probationary period.”
6There was no issue between the parties that the applicant was well qualified for the Branch Manager position. She has two masters degrees, including one in Library Science from the University of Toronto, and 30 years of public and academic library experience in Canada and the United States. The applicant was 60 years old when she started in the position of Branch Manager for the respondent.
7The branch manager position was a new one in the Brampton Public Library system. Previously, the personal respondent was both the Branch Manager and the Manager of Customer Services. The branch manager position was created to relieve him of the running of the day-to-day operations of a branch and allow him to concentrate on the customer service function of the library system. All branch managers, as well as the Customer Service Co-ordinators, including Kathy Samson, reported to the personal respondent in his new position of Manager, Circulation and Customer Service.
8According to the evidence from the personal respondent, the library decided to hire new branch managers for each of the four Brampton branch libraries to improve staff supervision and leadership. Prior to the restructuring, the branch manager was responsible for both a location and system-wide functions. As a result, they were not always available for staff. The library wanted its new managers to be “hands on” spending a lot of time on the library floor working with staff. The information services staff and supervisor of customer and circulation services reported to the branch manager who was responsible for the day-to-day planning, operation and evaluation of the branch staff and services and operation of the physical plant and equipment.
THE EVIDENCE
9The applicant’s evidence focused on what she referred to as the “Indian manager” incident and what she characterized as differential and undermining treatment of her as Branch Manager by the personal respondent. The respondents’ evidence focused on the applicant’s performance.
The “Indian manager” Incident
10The applicant identified an event that took place in the library the evening of August 4, 2007, and the personal respondent’s response to it, as highlighting the discriminatory environment in the workplace. There was no dispute between the parties about what happened on this evening. A library customer, upset about the mispronunciation of a South Asian name over the paging system, approached the circulation desk and asked to speak to the staff member who made the announcement. He was very aggressive with her and insisted on giving her a lesson on the proper pronunciation of East Indian names. He said he wanted to teach the whole library staff. The staff member suggested that he speak to the manager. He then spoke to the circulation desk clerk and asked for the Branch Manager’s contact information. She gave the customer the applicant’s business card with her name and contact information. The customer refused the card and said he did not want to speak to an “Indian,” he wanted to speak to someone “English.” The clerk then gave him the personal respondent’s business card and suggested he could call to set up an appointment.
11This event was reported to the personal respondent in an email from the staff member who offered the business cards. The applicant was copied on the email correspondence. The email also stated that the staff member assured the customer of the applicant’s professionalism and proficiency in English, but he still refused to speak with her and wanted to speak with someone “English.”
12The personal respondent met with the applicant about the incident his next day in the library. He told her that no customer could refuse to speak to a manager based on ethnicity or country of origin and that, if the customer called, he would be referred to her as the Branch Manager.
13The applicant’s evidence was that, within a week of her meeting with the personal respondent about this incident, she spoke to him again to see if the there was any follow up. The personal respondent told her that he did not take any further steps because the customer never called and did not leave any contact information. The applicant testified that she was upset about this, but returned to her office. She stated that the personal respondent then came to her office and asked why she was upset. According to her evidence, she said to him “I know what’s happening” and he turned red in the face and left her office. There was no further discussion of the incident.
14The personal respondent categorically denied that there was a second meeting about this incident. He stated that after his first meeting with the applicant he heard nothing more from the customer and as far as he was concerned that was the end of the matter. He did not believe there was any reason to follow up with the staff. He testified that he felt that this was a customer related issue not a staff related issue.
15The applicant testified that she felt a change in attitude toward her after the “Indian manager” incident. She noticed that the personal respondent and Kathy Samson avoided contact with her and took a longer route to go to the staff room, the printer or IT room in order to avoid passing her office. She argued that the incident was not only about her and the personal respondent but also involved a number of other staff members and he had a responsibility to confirm the applicant’s authority as the Branch Manager. She felt that the staff began to go to the personal respondent and Ms. Samson with issues that she should have been dealing with. She believed that the staff started to perceive her as powerless and lacking in authority because a customer had referred to her as the “Indian manager.” She was frustrated that the personal respondent did nothing to make it clear to staff that these attitudes were racist and unacceptable and, if a similar incident happened again, the staff must make it clear to the customer that she was the Branch Manager with authority to deal with any situation.
16The personal respondent denied that there was any change in attitude towards the applicant after the “Indian manager” incident. He referred to the applicant’s own notebook for the month of August which contained notations about many meetings he had with her on different issues. He stated that there may have been even more meetings than those noted because, based on her evidence, she did not always make notes of their meetings in her notebook. He also noted that it was a very busy month for him due to his involvement in a number of large corporate initiatives.
17The applicant agreed that it was business as usual as far as dealing with library issues, but that he avoided her in every other way.
Differential and Undermining Treatment
18The applicant outlined a number of events in her complaint that took place over the course of her employment where she felt she was subjected to differential and undermining treatment. At the hearing, she testified about one situation where she believed that her status as a manager was undermined when staff members were absent from the library without her knowledge or approval to take part in a children’s summer reading program with Ms. Samson. The applicant stated that, when she brought it to the personal respondent’s attention, he did not seem particularly concerned about it because Ms. Samson was with the staff.
19When questioned further about this incident by respondent counsel, the applicant agreed that the personal respondent told her she should speak to her staff about her expectations and to make it clear to them that they work as a team and must consult with her. The applicant also confirmed that unapproved absences like this did not occur again.
20In her witness statement, the applicant outlined other examples of situations in the office where she felt she was treated differently, including being excluded from formal and informal meetings and parties. She also noted situations where she felt her authority was undermined when staff members communicated directly with the personal respondent about issues related to schedules and absences and he failed to direct them to her. At other times, staff adjusting their work schedules without her permission. And there were instances when Ms. Samson made decisions about library matters without consulting her.
21The personal respondent confirmed in his evidence that there were occasions when staff directed questions to him about operational issues involving vacation requests, scheduling inefficiencies and training issues. Staff members were concerned that the applicant either did not respond to emails, or did not respond in a timely matter. The personal respondent stated that he discussed these matters with the applicant and always directed the staff to deal with her on these issues. He testified that he was very busy with his work and did not have time to also deal with operational issues at the branch level.
The Applicant’s Performance
22The respondents’ evidence focused on the applicant’s performance as Branch Manager. Although performance was not identified as the basis for the applicant’s termination, in this proceeding it was argued that she did not meet the performance expectations and that was the reason the applicant was not a “good fit” for the position of Branch Manager.
23The personal respondent conducted three performance reviews. His evidence was that these reviews assessed a probationary employee based on the expectations of their performance at each stage of their employment. The expectations increased as their probation progressed.
24The parties were in general agreement that the first two reviews were positive. The first review took place on January 5, 2007, and was based on the first two months of employment. Of the nine performance factors considered, the applicant was rated with “exceeds expectations” on four and with “good solid performance” on the other five factors.
25The second review was on April 11, 2007, based on the first four months of employment. Of the nine performance factors considered, the applicant was rated with “exceeds expectations” on two and with “good solid performance” on the other seven factors.
26The personal respondent’s evidence was that, after the second performance review, the applicant did not progress in the position as he expected. There were a number of areas of concerns related to time management and organization and staff supervision. There were also a number of problems with scheduling, payroll and responsiveness to staff. His evidence was that, as the library introduced new responsibilities related to the job of Branch Manager, the applicant’s performance declined.
27The third performance review took place on July 10, 2007. In this review, six performance factors were rated with “good solid performance” and four where rated with “improvement required,” including job knowledge, communications, initiative and staff development and supervision. The personal respondent testified that many of the items identified for improvement had been discussed with the applicant on a number of occasions, particularly planning, prioritization, task management, deadline tracking and the need to communicate with staff. The personal respondent put together a development plan for the applicant and met with her on a regular basis to keep track of her progress.
28The applicant denied that the personal respondent raised performance problems with her prior to this third review. She testified that she expressed concern about the four areas identified as needing improvement and the personal respondent assured her she should not be worried about them. Again, after receiving the development plan, she asked the personal respondent about it and he told her it was nothing to worry about and she was already performing to his satisfaction. The personal respondent denied telling her this. Both parties agreed, however, that a development plan was a routine part of a performance review and provided to staff even where there was no “improvement needed” ratings.
29One of the significant areas of disagreement between the parties involved a document which purported to summarize a meeting between the personal respondent and the applicant on August 23, just prior to his leaving for vacation. According to the personal respondent, he met with the applicant to review her progress with the development plan and discuss issues that had arisen with staff over the summer. This document summarized problems in a number of areas including: poor paper management, lost vacation requests, staff complaints about too much time on the telephone, missed deadlines, failure to ensure training and coaching for one of her staff members who was having difficulties, failure to provide training and orientation for new employees, poor management of the outlook calendar and failure to hold regular meetings with staff.
30The applicant denied that this meeting took place. She had no record in her calendar or notebook about this meeting and she stated that she never saw this document until the respondents filed their response to the human rights complaint.
31The personal respondent explained that the document was transcribed from hand written notes he made shortly after the meeting on August 23. He stated that it was his intention to write up the notes after he returned from vacation, however, he never got to it and they sat on his credenza until February 2008, when he transcribed the notes in response to a letter from the applicant’s lawyer.
32The personal respondent referred to his communication planner which included one page with a list of items, some of which were included in the transcribed document. The list of times had the applicant’s initials beside it and a follow up date of August 23.
33The applicant’s notebook did not make reference to a meeting on August 23. It included a record of a meeting with the personal respondent on August 20 where there was a discussion about maintaining a system to keep track of deadlines and communications. The personal respondent demonstrated his method by drawing a line down the right side of her notebook and writing in some examples. The applicant stated that, although the personal respondent did not insist that she adopt his method, she felt insulted when he demonstrated his method of diarizing items on her notebook. She was comfortable with her method of keeping track of dates and responsibilities.
34The personal respondent stated that this was one of many occasions when he tried to assist the applicant with organizing and keeping track of her work.
Kathy Samson’s Evidence
35Kathy Samson, the Customer Service Co-ordinator, was responsible for supervising the shelving and security staff at the branch and also reported to the personal respondent. Ms. Samson’s work area was near the personal respondent’s office and right across from the applicant’s office. She testified that she worked closely with the applicant to help her get acquainted with the staff and processes at the branch.
36Ms. Samson stated that she found working with the applicant tiresome and frustrating. She testified about a number of problems she observed in her performance such as: a need for repeated direction on the use of the outlook calendar, lack of response to vacation requests and other email inquiries, scheduling problems, payment issues for part time staff, lack of preparation for meetings, poor agenda planning, failure to hold regular staff meetings, spending too much time on the telephone, nodding off to sleep in the office or staff lounge, and a failure to deal with property management issues.
37Ms. Samson stated that as a result of these problems, she often ended up dealing with a lot of staff questions and concerns. She confirmed that there were occasions when staff came to her with requests that ought to have been dealt with by the applicant, but she approved them because the applicant was unavailable.
38Ms. Samson also confirmed that she had a close and friendly relationship with the personal respondent, including regularly having coffee together and occasionally lunch. She did not socialize in this way with the applicant although she did encourage her to have lunch in the staff lounge. She did not, and Ms. Samson stopped asking.
39The personal respondent appointed Ms. Samson to act in his position when he was out of the office. She felt that she had to spoon feed the applicant and follow up on all the items on the personal respondent’s list with her to do.
40Ms. Samson testified that she knew nothing about the “Indian manager” incident and there was no change in her interaction with the applicant.
41The applicant categorically disagreed with Ms. Samson’s assessment of her performance. She confirmed that Ms. Samson and the personal respondent had a very close relationship, including coffee and lunches together, and found that Ms. Samson often knew confidential information that she could have only learned from the personal respondent.
42In contradiction to Ms. Samson’s testimony, she referred to a July memo from another Branch Manager to the personal respondent with an update of what was going on while he was away on a course, which noted that Ms. Samson had no issues with her and she seemed to be on top of everything.
The Termination
43The personal respondent testified that the human resources manager came to see him on September 5 to discuss the applicant’s progress. A hand written note of that meeting by the human resources manager included observations from Ms. Samson and the personal respondent. Comments from Ms. Samson included that the applicant was much better last week with scheduling but planning and prioritization continued to be an issue. Comments from the personal respondent noted marginal performance, even given 12 months, better in a smaller location, can learn at a prescriptive level, does not probe, and tendency not to engage. According to this note, the personal respondent felt that, if the applicant were given an opportunity to work as a branch manager in a smaller branch, she would continue to perform at a marginal level, even with training and even if given an additional 12 months.
44The personal respondent stated that, after this meeting he met with the Chief Executive Officer on September 13. The CEO agreed with his assessment that the applicant was not going to be successful in the position of Branch Manager and made the decision to terminate her employment. The personal respondent and a representative from human resources met with the applicant at the end of the day on September 14 and she was given the letter of termination.
FINDINGS
45Section 5 of the Code provides:
5.(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
(2) Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
46All employees in Ontario, including probationary employees, are entitled to these Code protections. While an employer can terminate an employee during a probationary period, it cannot do so for discriminatory reasons.
47Discriminatory actions are, by their very nature, actions which are generally incapable of direct proof and it is necessary to infer discrimination from the conduct of individuals and the circumstances surrounding the events in issue. As noted in Sinclair v. London (City), 2008 HRTO 48, the Tribunal “must be sensitive to the subtle ways in which race may affect decision making, and attentive to circumstantial evidence that may indicate differential treatment on the basis of race.”
48As outlined in Clennon v. Toronto East General Hospital, 2009 HRTO 1242 (CanLll), the Tribunal has adopted a three part test for circumstantial evidence. The applicant has the initial evidentiary burden to establish, on the balance of probabilities, a prima facie case of discrimination. If this burden is met, it is the up to the respondents to provide a credible and rational explanation of non-discriminatory grounds for the conduct in question. If the respondents present this evidence, the applicant must then show, on a balance of probabilities, that the reasons offered by the respondents are not the true explanations but a pretext for discrimination. In other words, the question is whether an inference of discrimination is more probable from the evidence than the actual explanation offered by the respondents. The applicant does not have to show that discrimination was the only reason for the alleged events. A finding that discrimination was a least partially responsible for the events may be sufficient to trigger a finding that the applicant’s Code-protected rights were infringed.
49In this case, the applicant submitted that, as a senior visible minority person in a management position in the Brampton Public Library system, it was reasonable to infer that discriminatory factors played a part in the decision to terminate her employment, particularly when the letter of termination identified that she was not the “best fit” for the position. The applicant felt that, after the “Indian manager” incident, the library came to view her as the “Indian manager” and the employment environment changed, culminating in the decision to terminate her the following month. She submitted that the “best fit” reason for her termination was a pretext: that she was not terminated for lack of performance but because the personal respondent no longer wanted to work with a woman who confronted him with an obviously racialized incident.
50The respondents submitted that the applicant was terminated because, notwithstanding all the efforts made by the personal respondent to assist and coach her, she failed to meet the standard the library expected. The respondents noted that the third performance contained four areas identified as needing improvement demonstrating that her performance had been deteriorating from her earlier reviews. While there was positive language in the reviews, it was because they tried to assist her in her development and couched her reviews in positive language reflecting its desire that she be successful in her job. It is the respondents’ position, however, that the progress hoped for never materialized.
51The applicant submitted that the most reasonable view of the performance reviews and development plans were not that she was slipping in the job or there were performance deficiencies, but rather they identified further initiatives to work toward and target dates for review. The applicant believed that the personal respondent tried to justify his decision to terminate her employment by identifying performance deficiencies, but never raised these concerns with her.
52Making a determination of whether the applicant has established that it is more probable than not that she experienced discrimination turns, in part, on issues of credibility. The evidence from the applicant and personal respondent conflict on two significant points. The applicant testified that she had two meetings with the personal respondent about the “Indian manager” incident. The personal respondent denied that this second meeting took place. The personal respondent stated that he met with the applicant on August 23 to review her performance. The applicant denied that the meeting took place.
53As noted in Shah v. George Brown College, 2009 HRTO 920, an assessment of credibility requires more than listening to the witnesses and deciding who appears to be telling the truth. The Tribunal has adopted an analysis of credibility as articulated in the case of Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (BCCA), which requires that the decision maker determine whether the evidence is in “harmony with the preponderance of probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions.” As outlined in Shah, factors that assist in making that determination include corroborative evidence from other witnesses, the extent to which witnesses may have an interest in the outcome of the case, or have a self-interest in testifying for one of the parties.
54In considering the evidence regarding the “Indian manager” incident, the respondents questioned the applicant’s version of events noting that the first reference to the second meeting with the personal respondent appeared in her witness statement presented the day before the start of the hearing on August 27, 2010. Considering the importance the applicant placed on this second meeting, and the meaning she read into the personal respondent’s reaction to her remark “I know what’s happening,” the respondents questioned why there was no reference to this meeting in the applicant’s very detailed reply statement to the original complaint.
55The respondents argued there were many reasons to accept the personal respondent’s evidence that there was no second meeting. It was noted that the personal respondent was a very precise person and his manner of giving evidence and clarifying questions demonstrated his need to know what exactly was being said before agreeing or disagreeing. In contrast, the applicant’s evidence about the second meeting seemed to evolve over time.
56The applicant confirmed that the reply to the original complaint condensed the information about the event and did not specify about two separate meetings. She explained that she prepared the reply herself and did not know if she should put that information in or not. The applicant submitted that, nonetheless, it was logical that she would check back with the personal respondent to see if he had heard anything further from the customer. In her view, the only reason the personal respondent denied that the second meeting took place was because he was embarrassed by it and it lead to the decision to terminate her.
57Regarding the alleged meeting on August 23, 2007, the applicant denied that it took place and was surprised by the document submitted by the respondent as a summary of the meeting. She submitted that it was not until the end of the cross examination of the personal respondent that it was clear how this document came about. In her view, the more probable explanation for the document was that it was prepared as a defence to litigation. She noted that it was also surprising that the personal respondent did not keep the hand written notes of the meeting given his claim that they were transcribed after receiving a letter from the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant argued that this was a post facto document which cobbled together a number of events in response to litigation and was now being relied upon to argue that the applicant had performance problems. She noted that, even assuming that the meeting took place, the document includes the notation “to be evaluated in one month” and she was terminated before that time frame passed.
58In support of her position that the meeting did not take place on August 23, the applicant referred to the section entitled “Deadline Tracking” in the document which included a reference to the personal respondent taking a pad of paper, drawing a margin on the right side and telling her to write her tasks on the left of the margin and day due dates to the right. The applicant argued that it was more likely that this discussion took place on August 20, as demonstrated by the personal respondent’s writing in her notebook on that date.
59The respondents submitted that the fact that the personal respondent testified against his self interest when admitting to the delay in transcribing his notes from August 23, added to the credibility of his evidence about this meeting. The respondents also referred to the page in his communication planner referencing many of the topics outlined in the document and noting the follow-up date of August 23 along with the applicant’s initials. The respondent submitted that there were many meetings with the applicant about performance issues. The evidence that deadline tracking issue was part of the meeting on August 20 did not establish that it was not also discussed on August 23.
60In considering the credibility of the evidence, it is obvious that both the applicant and the personal respondent have a direct interest in the outcome of the case. Although I am troubled by aspects of the evidence from both parties, on balance, I find the personal respondent’s evidence to be more credible.
61In relation to the second meeting after the “Indian manager” incident, while logic may indicate that it was likely the applicant followed up with the personal respondent to see if he heard anything further from this irate customer, I am less confident of the applicant’s recollection of their conversation, being articulated for the first time three years after the event. I note that, in the detailed pleadings produced in relation to the original complaint, the “Indian manager” incident was listed near the end as one of many examples of alleged discrimination. As the case evolved, these concerns became more detailed and the second meeting characterized as the turning point in her employment.
62The evidence on whether the applicant and personal respondent met on August 23 is more equivocal in light of the fact that the personal respondent did not produce the hand written notes he said he made after the meeting. However, there is corroborating evidence in personal respondent’s communication planner that included a page with the follow up date of August 23 referencing the applicant’s initials and itemizing many of the topics outlined in the transcribed note of that meeting.
63While the “Indian manager” incident clearly identified the applicant’s racial background, I find that the evidence does not support her claim that it resulted in a significant change in her dealings with the personal respondent. There was no disagreement that they met with the same regularity during the few weeks after this incident on August 4, and before the personal respondent left for vacation on August 24. There was also no dispute about the personal respondent’s evidence that that was a very busy time for him and that his attention was elsewhere. As a result, he may have had less informal interaction with the applicant. Ms. Samson’s behaviour towards the applicant could not have been influenced by the “Indian manager” incident because she had no knowledge of it.
64Nor do I find that the evidence supports the applicant’s claim that the personal respondent’s failure of follow up with staff after the “Indian manager” incident, to confirm that all complaints about service must be referred to the Branch Manager, undermined her authority or revealed an underlying discriminatory environment in the library. The only reason the staff member involved in the incident provided the personal respondent’s contact information was because the customer refused to accept the applicant’s contact information presumably because a South Asian would not need lessons on how to correctly pronounce Indian names. There was no dispute that the personal respondent confirmed with the applicant that all customer complaints were to be directed to her and customers could not refuse to speak to her because of her ethnicity. The customer did not contact the library again and there was no evidence that the staff behaved differently toward the applicant after this event.
65As a result, having considered and weighed all the evidence presented, I conclude that the respondent’s explanation for the termination the applicant’s employment, that she did not meet performance expectations, to be more probable than an inference of discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, I am not making any determination about the correctness of the respondents’ assessment of the applicant’s performance. I appreciate that she may have had a difficult time fitting into the new role of branch manager given that the personal respondent formerly held that position and the staff was likely comfortable with his way of doing things. This is reflected by the applicant’s concerns that staff took issues to the personal respondent and Ms. Samson instead of her. Rather than drawing an inference of discrimination from this evidence, however, I find that it is more likely part and parcel of the challenges of this particular workplace environment.
66Having reached this conclusion, however, I might also note that the respondents may have used better wording in the letter of termination than “best fit” leaving open to speculation the real reason for the termination, particularly given that the applicant was a racialized woman in a predominately non-racialized work environment.
REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF THE PERSONAL RESPONDENT
67At the end of the hearing, the respondents requested that the personal respondent named in the Application be removed from the proceeding. In light of the decision to dismiss the Application, there is no reason to deal with that Request.
ORDER
68The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of December, 2010.
“Signed by”
Janice Sandomirsky
Member