Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Vincent Puleio Applicant
-and-
Moneris Solutions Corporation, Linda Bruce and Patricia Black Respondents
Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: April 6, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 659 Indexed as: Puleio v. Moneris Solutions
Appearances
Vincent Puleio, Applicant ) Grace Permaul, Counsel Moneris Solutions Corporation, Linda Bruce ) Kimberly T. Morris, Counsel and Patricia Black, Respondents )
1This is an Application filed June 30, 2009 and perfected on October 30, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2The human rights complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the complaint) and upon which the subject-matter of this Application is based is dated April 19, 2006. The applicant alleges in the complaint that his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of age and disability was infringed by the respondents. Prior to the hearing issues arose with respect to the timeliness of elements of the Application and the scope of the issues to be addressed. These were resolved prior to the hearing. See 2010 HRTO 2059 and 2010 HRTO 2416.
3The remaining particulars of the allegations made in the complaint are as follows:
a. The applicant self-identifies as a 51 year old person with hyper-tension. He alleges that he is now under the care of a psychologist and taking medication.
b. The applicant alleges that in November 2004 he was verbally attacked by the respondent Bruce for work related issues that were the responsibility of the help desk. The applicant alleges that the verbal altercation caused him to become ill and when he excused himself, "management" asked him if he was quitting.
c. The applicant alleges that when he returned to work from a sick leave in February 2005 he had medical information to justify his absence. Despite this the applicant alleges that was given an unreasonably heavy work load, his work station was assigned to a new employee and he was given a desk with a faulty computer.
d. The applicant alleges that despite medical information to support his illness he was assigned to several new accounts.
e. The applicant alleges that on December 5, 2005 he was called to a meeting to discuss an email he had sent to his supervisors raising the possibility of a problem with the volume of accounts he had been assigned. The applicant alleges that the respondents had not read his email in time and held him responsible for all of the problems that had arisen while he had been away on a vacation.
f. The applicant states that he was off work on a medical leave from December 5, 2005 to February 26, 2006. The applicant alleges that he provided the respondent with a letter from his treating physicians to the effect that his return to work date would be dependent upon the respondent employer accommodating the applicant in an alternative position.
g. The applicant alleges that a meeting was scheduled on February 14, 2006 with the Director of Human Resources. The applicant alleges that the meeting was cancelled by the Director.
h. The applicant alleges on February 24, 2006 he received a letter from the respondent indicating that he was expected to return to his existing position and that if the applicant did not return by March 1, they would assume that he had voluntarily terminated his employment.
4A hearing was held on January 11, 2011 in Toronto in accordance with the expectations set out in the Code and the Tribunal's Rules that transitional applications be adjudicated in a manner that is fair, just and expeditious. I heard evidence from the applicant, as well as Linda Bruce and Patricia Black, both supervisors of the applicant, and Lynn Nadeau, at the time an employee in the Human Resources Department of the respondents. At the conclusion of the evidence, it was agreed in light of the late hour that the submissions would be made in writing on a schedule agreed at the time.
5The Application is allowed in part.
6I find that there is absolutely no evidence of discrimination or harassment in relation to the applicant's age and disability in the events leading up to his finally leaving work in December 2005 (paragraph 3(f) above). The evidence at its highest is that the applicant may have been having difficulties with his workload and that this lead to a management response which the applicant found disagreeable. There appear to have been verbal altercations over these workplace issues, but there is