HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Nina Unantenne
Applicant
-and-
The Hospital for Sick Children
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie
Indexed as: Unantenne v. Hospital for Sick Children
APPEARANCES
Nina Unantenne, Applicant
Nina Unantenne, Self-represented
The Hospital for Sick Children, Respondent
Robert W. Weir, Counsel
Introduction
1Nina Unantenne filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin. The applicant identifies herself as a Sri Lankan and Sinhalese. Her employment with the respondent was terminated during her probationary period.
2In a decision issued prior to the hearing of the Application, I removed individual respondents from the Application: 2012 HRTO 311. The respondent also raised an issue of timeliness of some of the allegations contained in the Application. I deferred addressing this issue until hearing evidence.
Summary of evidence
3The applicant adopted her detailed witness statement as her testimony and also provided oral testimony.
4The applicant has alleged that discriminatory questions were asked of her in her interview for the position of Administrative Coordinator in the Urology Division of the Hospital for Sick Children. She also alleges that the workplace was a poisoned work environment and that the termination of her employment while on probation was discriminatory.
5Dr. Joao Pippi Salle is the Head of the Division of Urology at the Hospital for Sick Children (the “Hospital”) and was the direct supervisor of the respondent. He came to Canada as an immigrant from Brazil, approximately 16 years ago. He conducted the interview of applicants for the position of Administrative Coordinator, including interviewing the applicant. Candidates for the position were first vetted by the Human Resources Department of the Hospital. Three candidates were referred to Dr. Salle for an interview. Dr. Salle testified that the other two candidates were Caucasian and born in Canada. The applicant was interviewed on April 8, 2009.
6In his Response to the Application, Dr. Salle admitted that he asked the applicant questions regarding her marital status, family background and place of origin. He confirmed this in his testimony. He testified that he was of the view that she would be a harder worker because she was an immigrant, like him. He also testified that as an unmarried person, she would be more dedicated to the division than a married person. He identified her as the top candidate for the position and asked that she be hired by the Hospital. In a note made after the interview, Dr. Salle wrote that she was an impressive candidate and seemed to have the skills needed for the job. In his testimony, he stated that the fact that she was an immigrant and unmarried did not work against her at all in the selection process.
7The applicant testified that Dr. Salle seemed nice in the interview, but his questions were “weird”. She testified that she first raised concerns about the questions at the meeting where her employment was terminated, on August 20, 2009.
8The applicant was interviewed separately by Christine Van Klaveren, Director of Perioperative Administrative Services and Jennifer Jackson, Human Resources Partner. The applicant was also their first choice for the position and she was provided with an offer of employment on May 11, 2009 for a one-year contract, ending on May 26, 2010. The contract provided for a three-month probationary period.
9The applicant testified that she was not happy with the salary offered for the position ($25.79 per hour or $46,937.80 per year) in the letter of offer. She stated that the salary for the position did not compensate her for her years of experience, education, knowledge, skills and abilities. In her employment application form submitted to the respondent, the applicant stated that her desired annual salary was $53,000 to $60,000. The salary for the position was not discussed in the job interviews.
10The applicant testified that she spoke to someone in the compensation department at the Hospital who told her that the rate for a coordinator position was between 29 and 35 dollars an hour. She then called Ms. Van Klavernen to discuss the salary. Ms. Van Klavernen testified that she told her that she could take time to consider whether she would accept the position at the rate of pay set out in the letter. The applicant signed the employment contract on May 19, 2009. The applicant stated that she accepted the position because of the challenges in finding employment in a recession and because of her financial situation.
11Ms. Klavernen testified that the rate of pay was set for the applicant in accordance with “Administrative Guidelines for HSC General Staff Compensation Program”. Based on a review of similar positions at the Hospital, she determined that the range for the Administrative Coordinator position was between $22.76 and $28.45 per hour. The guidelines provided that new employees be placed within 80 to 92 percent of the range. The applicant was placed at 92% of the range ($25.79 per hour or $46,937.80 per year).
12The Administrative Coordinator position was a new position in the Urology Division. The following major responsibilities were set out in the job poster for the position:
Coordinating and maintaining schedules;
Organizing and planning meetings;
Preparing and distributing agendas and minutes for meetings;
Answering inquiries;
General office duties such as maintaining files and reviewing mail;
Composing and coordinating communications to internal and external contacts;
Preparing reports, applications and presentations; and
Processing and monitoring cost centre expenses, analyzing monthly financial reports and following up on discrepancies.
13The job poster included the following general statement about the role:
You will provide general support to program staff and act as a central resource and communication link and facilitate completion of projects and other assigned tasks for the Director.
14The job poster set out the qualifications for the position, including identifying supervisory experience as an asset.
15Dr. Salle testified that this was a new position in the division. He confirmed that the job poster accurately described the position. He testified that the position was designed to assist him in overseeing the situation in the office and to assist with the financial reports and accounts. In addition, he testified that he made it clear to the applicant that she should also be able to cover for any of the other employees in the division. He testified that the position was not a supervisory position, but an overseeing one.
16The applicant started work on May 25, 2009. The applicant alleged that she was not made to feel welcome and that she could feel the “tension”. She testified that she was not given the office room that the administrative secretary had occupied, but was placed in the open area with the secretaries. She also stated that she was not given a proper chair for her desk.
17The applicant testified that she was not given the necessary authority to approve purchase orders, which she viewed as an integral part of her duties.
18The applicant testified that during her first week of employment the secretaries ordered her to pick up the mail, sort the mail and do other clerical duties. Part of her duties was to keep track of vacation and sick days of the secretaries, but the secretaries were reluctant to provide her with this information.
19The applicant also testified that Donna Marson, a senior secretary in the division made a comment about a “different smell” in the air in the office, shortly after the applicant started employment. Ms. Marson recalled making a comment about a smell which was discovered to be some kind of scented stick or sticks under the desk of one of the doctors in the division. She testified that the comment had nothing to do with the applicant. The applicant testified that Ms. Marson was looking at her when she made the comment. She also testified that she did not smell anything in the office that day.
20The applicant testified that in the fourth week of her employment, Ms. Marson repeatedly asked her to do the weekly schedule. The applicant stated that she told her that this was not the applicant’s job and that she had only be asked to learn the task in order to be a backup for vacations. The applicant testified that Ms. Marson was “infuriated” with her and said she would not take instructions “from a lesser person”. The applicant also testified that Ms. Marson told her she was not an immigrant and did not want to report to the applicant. In her testimony, Ms. Marson denied making these comments.
21Dr. Salle asked the applicant to schedule a divisional meeting. She testified that there was opposition to the meeting from the secretaries. In a discussion with Mathilde Ferreira, a senior secretary in the division, the applicant told her that it would make Dr. Salle happy if she attended. The applicant states that Ms. Ferriera complained to Dr. Salle that the applicant had demanded that she attend the meeting. Ms. Ferriera testified that she declined to attend the meeting because of transportation issues after work. She denied that she ever expressed a concern about not being paid to attend the meeting.
22The applicant testified that Ms. Ferriera said she was not going to be her friend because she was Sri Lankan. In cross examination she testified that this was not said to her directly but was implied. The applicant was relying on notes taken in the subsequent investigation of her allegations by the respondent, after her termination of employment. In those investigator’s notes of the interview with Ms. Ferriera, there is a sentence about the two of them discussing their place of origin (Ms. Ferriera was born in Portugal). On the next line, the investigator notes that Ms. Ferriera said she “could tell they were not going to be friends”. Ms. Ferriera testified that they did have a conversation about where they were born.
23Dr. Salle testified that he called a staff meeting to discuss some of the conflict or tension that had arisen in the workplace, in July of 2009. The applicant stated that Dr. Salle shouted at her in the meeting, as well as ridiculing and belittling her in front of the other secretaries. She also testified that he asked her to admit that she could have been harsh with the secretaries. She stated that he then yelled at her and stated that he was going to fire her. He then requested a private meeting. She stated that in the private conversation with Dr. Salle, he told her that as an immigrant she had to put up with the secretaries or else he would have no choice but to fire her. She testified that she told him that she was trying to perform her job to the best of her abilities and that she was being taken advantage of because she was a “coloured person”.
24Ms. Marson testified that after everyone had a chance to speak at the staff meeting, Dr. Salle asked the applicant if she would be prepared to take any responsibility for the tensions in the workplace and she said she would not. She also testified that Dr. Salle did not yell at the meeting. She stated that the applicant mentioned her educational qualifications during the meeting in a way that implied that she was superior to the secretaries in the office.
25Patricia Notarangelo was a secretary in the division and attended the meeting. She did not recall Dr. Salle yelling at the meeting. She testified that the applicant did mention her degrees in the discussion and that the impression was created that some tasks were beneath her because of her educational qualifications.
26Ms. Ferriera testified that the applicant referred to her educational qualifications and said that the secretaries did not know anything. She also testified that Dr. Salle did not yell at the meeting.
27Dr. Salle testified that no mention of firing the applicant was made in front of the secretaries. He testified that he did not consider the applicant’s mention of her degrees at the meeting to be appropriate and he told her so in the meeting. In the private meeting afterwards, he testified that he re-emphasized that her approach at the meeting was not appropriate. He also told her that she was too abrasive with the secretaries and that was not the appropriate way to relate to them. He testified that she told him that she was “short and I have dark skin” and that she always had to defend herself. He told her that he was short and an immigrant like her and was the head of the division, without being abrasive.
28In his notes taken after the meeting, Dr. Salle noted that the applicant “seemed to be too harsh when delivering messages”. He also wrote that he would “reflect about the meeting and make a decision”. He testified that he made the decision not to continue with the employment relationship after determining that the applicant and the situation in the office would never change. He also stated that a coordinator position might not work that well in the division.
29The applicant also testified about an event relating to problems with the doctors’ blackberries that occurred on August 20, 2009. One of the doctors suggested that the blackberries were not working because she had neglected to pay the bills on time. It later was confirmed that the problem rested with the service provider and was not connected to billing. The applicant was not responsible for payment of these bills. It was the applicant’s view that the Hospital was simply looking to pin the blame on her to support her discharge.
30On August 20, 2009, the applicant met with Ms. Van Klaveren and Ms. Jackson and was advised that her employment was being terminated. The applicant testified that she was told that she was not a “good fit” for the division and that she did not get along with other staff members. The letter of termination stated that she had not met the job requirements during her probationary period. Ms. Van Klavernen testified that this was a standard termination letter.
31At the meeting, the applicant told Ms. Van Klavernen and Ms. Jackson that she had experienced a hostile and poisonous environment and that there were human rights issues during her employment. She told them that she would have to file an application with the Human Rights Tribunal. During subsequent conversations with Ms. Jackson, the applicant told her that Dr. Salle had asked inappropriate questions in her interview with respect to marital status, immigration status and age.
32The applicant retained counsel and her counsel sent a letter to the Hospital on October 19, 2009, identifying her concerns with the interview process and her employment. On October 23, 2009, the Hospital responded that it was “looking into” the issues raised. An internal investigation was conducted and a report was prepared, dated December 21, 2009. The investigator interviewed the applicant, Dr. Salle and the applicant’s co-workers.
33In the investigator’s notes of her interview with Dr. Salle, he is reported to have said that he asked her about her immigrant status “because I know that immigrants to Canada have to work very hard to get ahead” and he thought she would be a very hard worker. In the investigation report, the investigator simply noted that he delved into her background in an attempt to “get to know” her.
34The investigation report concluded that there was no basis for concluding that the applicant was discriminated against under the Code. On January 15, 2010, the counsel for the Hospital advised counsel for the applicant that the investigation had been completed and the Hospital had concluded that there had been no violation of its policies respecting human rights in the workplace. With regards to the questions asked by Dr. Salle in the interview, the counsel for the Hospital wrote:
The Hospital does acknowledge that questions may have been interpreted as inappropriate were asked of Ms. Unantenne during her employment interview. However, these questions were not asked in an effort to screen Ms. Unantenne from the position on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. On the contrary, the Hospital determined that Ms. Unantenne was the best candidate for the position and she was hired. The Hospital has concluded that the questions reflect a lack of knowledge of appropriate interview techniques. As an improvement measure the Hospital has scheduled an education session with the hiring manager in question to avoid future occurrences of inappropriate questions being asked of candidates during interviews.
Since Ms. Unantenne experienced no adverse consequences as a result of those questions, the Hospital considers that this matter is now closed.
35Ms. Van Klavernen testified that she has advised Dr. Salle that his questions were inappropriate and that in future she would join him for any interviews.
Submissions
36The applicant provided written submissions as well as making oral submissions.
37The applicant submitted that she was discriminated against in her interview with Dr. Salle, in the setting of her salary, during the course of employment and in her termination of her employment. She also alleges that the respondent brought false allegations against her after her termination (she is referring to the letter of termination of employment and allegations contained in the respondents Response).
38The applicant submitted that the questions asked by Dr. Salle in the interview were asked in order to discriminate against her during her employment with the Hospital. She stated that she felt racially targeted by the questions. She submitted that she was hired in bad faith. She submitted that because of her race and ethnic origin she was seen as someone who could be pushed around by the secretaries and others.
39The applicant submitted that she was hired to be a supervisor and that the salary that she was provided was not an appropriate salary for a supervisor. She stated that she was hired as a supervisor, and was not paid the same as is paid for similar positions within the hospital. She submitted that she believed Dr. Salle did not want her to exercise her authority as a supervisor but rather wanted her to be a clerical assistant to the secretaries.
40The applicant submitted that the secretaries did not want to take any direction from her because of her race, ethnic background and country of origin. Even though she was hired with supervisory authority, her position was undermined because her interactions with staff were characterized in terms of her ethnicity and visible minority status.
41The applicant submitted that she did her best to excel at the job.
42The applicant submitted that the respondent did not conduct a proper investigation of her allegations which shows a discriminatory attitude on the part of the Hospital.
43The applicant provided a number of articles which she stated confirm the prevalence of systemic discrimination in Canadian organizations.
44The respondent submitted that the allegations relating to the interview questions were not timely. Subsection 34 of the Code requires that an application be filed within one year after the incident to which the application relates or if there was a series of events, within one year after the last incident in the series. The incident referred to in the subsection must be a violation of the Code and none of the allegations raised by the applicant are incidents within the meaning of the Code.
45The respondent noted that the Tribunal can grant relief against the one-year time limit if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay (subsection 34(2)). The applicant cannot demonstrate good faith. She knew the questions were wrong and her counsel raised the issue before the end of the year in a letter to the Hospital in October.
46The respondent submitted that there was nothing in the Application that engaged the Code. The bulk of her issues are routine and petty things that happen to employees in the workplace. The applicant has provided no evidence to support a connection to any prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Code.
47The respondent conceded that inappropriate questions were asked by Dr. Salle in the job interview. However, there was no discriminatory intent or result. The interview was friendly. She was hired as a result, in part, of her interview. She was preferred by Dr. Salle over Caucasian candidates. If anything, the questions were to her benefit because they were part of a positive stereotype. Dr. Salle was later reminded and perhaps reprimanded for his questions.
48The respondent submitted that there was no discriminatory outcome or impact of the interview questions. The situation here is similar to that in Kailani v. G4S Security Services (Canada) Ltd., 2011 HRTO 1790, where the adjudicator concluded (at para. 38) that there was no evidence to indicate that asking a question referring to the applicant’s diabetes, differentially treated or disadvantaged the applicant in his efforts to obtain employment.
49The respondent submitted that the other allegations raised by the applicant did not happen. With regards to alleged comments in the workplace that referred to her ethnicity, place of origin or marital status, no one heard any comments. The respondent submitted that the witnesses for the respondent were more credible. Many of the details of conversations set out in the witness statement do not appear in the Application.
50The respondent submitted that the salary for the position was set objectively and the applicant has not established any link between the rate of pay and a prohibited ground of discrimination.
51The respondent submitted that the applicant’s employment was terminated within her probationary period because of communication issues and being abrasive with the secretaries. She refused to take any responsibility and continues to not accept any responsibility for her behaviour. The position was not a supervisory position. There may have been a misunderstanding of her role, but this misunderstanding is not related to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.
Decision
Timeliness of Interview Allegations
52The respondent has submitted that the allegations relating to the interview of the applicant are not timely. The interview occurred more than one year before the filing of the Application. The question to determine is whether the interview was part of a series of incidents. In order to constitute a series of incidents there must be a number of related or similar events “occurring in temporal order or succession” (Sutherland v. District School Board North Ontario East, 2010 HRTO 2270 at para. 23). In this case, the alleged discriminatory acts of the respondent occurred within approximately three months. The job interview was the beginning of the relationship with Dr. Salle. The interview was the beginning of the employment relationship with the respondent. It can therefore be said to be related to her employment relationship. The gap between the first incident and subsequent alleged incidents of discrimination is not significant. Accordingly, I find that the allegations relating to the job interview are timely as they form part of a series of events with the applicant’s other allegations.
Allegations of Discrimination
53Section 5 of the Code states:
- (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, 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.
54The applicant has alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin.. She has also alleged that she was harassed on the basis of these prohibited grounds. The allegations relate to her job interview, her employment and termination of employment. I will first address the allegations relating to the job interview.
Interview Allegations
55Section 23 of the Code states:
- (1) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where an invitation to apply for employment or an advertisement in connection with employment is published or displayed that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination.
(2) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where a form of application for employment is used or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) precludes the asking of questions at a personal employment interview concerning a prohibited ground of discrimination where discrimination on such ground is permitted under this Act.
56Subsection 23(2) provides that the right to equal treatment under section 5 of the Code is infringed where an oral inquiry is made of an applicant that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination. Dr. Salle has admitted that he asked questions relating to, among other things, the applicant’s marital status and status as an immigrant.
57The Applicant has not relied on marital status as a ground of discrimination in her Application and she did not request an amendment of her Application. Accordingly, I have not addressed this ground of discrimination.
58In Thompson v. Selective Personnel, 2009 HRTO 1224, the Tribunal held that the mere asking of a question on an application form relating to psychiatric treatment was prima facie discrimination (at para. 23) even where the applicant is not refused a job (in that case, the job opening was on hold).
59Therefore, the fact that the applicant obtained the job (and in fact, may have obtained the job in part because of the discriminatory questions) does not make the questions asked non-discriminatory. Dr. Salle’s good intentions in asking the questions are not relevant to a finding of discrimination. I find therefore that the questions asked by Dr. Salle are discriminatory under section 5 of the Code.
60The respondent has conceded that these questions were inappropriate. Prior to the filing of the Application, the respondent gave instructions to Dr. Salle about appropriate interview questions and Ms. Van Klavernen has stated that he will not be permitted to conduct interviews on his own in the future.
61The applicant did not provide any evidence of any injury to her dignity as a result of the asking of the questions. She testified that she found them “weird”, but she did not raise any concerns about the questions in her subsequent interview with Ms. Van Klavernen and Ms. Jackson. She did not raise any concerns until her termination of employment meeting and after.
62I will now turn to an assessment of the effect, if any, of these questions on the subsequent experience of the applicant in her position.
63The applicant was not able to establish any link between the questions asked and her treatment in the workplace. Dr. Salle did not make his decision to recommend her termination of employment based on any of the questions he asked in her interview. I have therefore concluded that the discriminatory questions had no negative impact on the applicant.
64There is no evidence that the discriminatory questions resulted in any injury to the applicant’s dignity, feelings or self-respect. In the absences of any damages that arose out of the discriminatory conduct of Dr. Salle, I decline to award any monetary compensation for this breach of the Code. .
65When the respondent became aware of the allegations, it took them seriously and has addressed the issue appropriately. Dr. Salle was given a reprimand and will not be permitted to interview candidates on his own. There is therefore no need for a public interest remedy. In the circumstances, a declaration that the respondent breached the Code is sufficient.
Poisoned workplace and termination of employment allegations
66The applicant has raised a number of other allegations about her experience working for the respondent. She has alleged that she was not paid at an appropriate rate for the position of administrative coordinator because of her race and ethnic origin. She has alleged that she was harassed by her co-workers on the basis of race and ethnic origin. She has also alleged that her termination of employment was based on discriminatory grounds.
67The applicant has alleged that the salary for the position was discriminatory but has provided no evidence to support the allegation. The respondent provided credible evidence that the salary for the position was determined on the basis of objective criteria and the applicant was placed at the top of the range for a new employee. The applicant has not established that the salary for the position was established on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
68The applicant has made allegations about comments made in the workplace which requires an assessment of credibility of witnesses. In assessing credibility I am guided by the oft-quoted principles articulated by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354:
The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carries conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions.
69The applicant has alleged that comments referring to her ethnic origin and immigrant status were directed to her in the workplace. Ms. Marson testified that there was a smell in the workplace that was traced to some sticks under a doctor’s desk. The applicant relies only on the fact that Ms. Marson looked at her when she made the comment. On a balance of probabilities, I have concluded that the comment about a “smell” in the office was not directed at the applicant. The evidence of Ms. Marson was clear and believable on this point.
70Ms. Ferriera did not say that she would not be friends with the applicant because of her place of origin. The applicant admitted that this was not said to her directly. She was under the impression that this was the case because of the placement of two unrelated sentences in notes made by the investigator of an interview with Ms. Ferriera. She has not established that Ms. Ferriera said anything that was discriminatory.
71The applicant alleges that Dr. Salle referred to her as “short and brown”. Dr. Salle testified that it was the applicant who used this expression in their conversation. Dr. Salle’s testimony was credible that the applicant referred to herself in this way in the context of explaining her behaviour in the workplace, and Dr. Salle pointed out his immigrant status and stature in response. I find that it was the applicant who referred to herself in this way and not Dr. Salle. The applicant has not demonstrated that the conduct of Dr. Salle in that meeting was discriminatory.
72The other incidents raised by the applicant were conflicts in the workplace that do not relate to any prohibited ground of discrimination. The conflict in the workplace may have resulted from the introduction of an ill-defined role of administrative coordinator in the work unit and from communication issues, but no link has been established between the conflict in the workplace and a prohibited ground of discrimination.
73The applicant has not established that her termination of employment was linked to a prohibited ground of discrimination. The evidence shows that there were communication issues in the workplace and this was the basis of the decision to terminate her employment before the end of her probationary period. I find that the applicant’s employment was terminated for performance-related issues and not on the basis of her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship or ethnic origin.
74The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over allegations of general unfairness, as noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17, “there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations” to support a finding of discrimination under the Code.
75The applicant has alleged that the respondent failed to adequately investigate her allegations. The jurisprudence has established that in order to satisfy the duty to investigate, the respondent must take reasonable steps to address allegations of discrimination (see Nelson v. Lakehead University, 2008 HRTO 41). Reasonable steps include acting promptly, awareness that the conduct complained of (if proven) is prohibited; taking the allegations seriously; and communicating its actions to the complainant: Abdallah v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2008 HRTO 230 at paragraph 87.
76Shortly after being advised of her concerns, the respondent conducted an investigation, including interviewing the applicant. Although the investigator concluded that there had been no breach of the Code with regards to the interview conducted by Dr. Salle, the respondent did take positive steps to address the findings of the investigator. The respondent communicated the findings of the investigator and the corrective actions it had taken. I therefore find that the respondent did conduct an appropriate investigation.
77Accordingly, the allegations relating to the poisoned work environment and the termination of employment are dismissed. As determined above, I have found that the respondent breached the Code in relation to the questions about immigrant status and place of origin posed by Dr. Salle in the job interview. A declaration will be issued with regards to this founded allegation.
Order
78Accordingly, the Tribunal orders:
a. A declaration that the respondent breached section 5 of the Code, pursuant to section 23(2); and
b. The remainder of the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of June, 2012.
“Signed by”
Ian R. Mackenzie
Member