Gregoire v. Ontario (Government Services), 2013 HRTO 1218

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Gregoire

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Government Services), Kathleen Dillabough, Dennis Bedeau, Marsha Smith, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Warren Thomas, Diane Boisvert, Sonia Boudreau Alison Dewar, Workwise Occupational Assessment Centre Inc., Ken Suddaby, Peter Judge and the Liberal Party of Ontario

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: July 11, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1218

Indexed as: Gregoire v. Ontario (Government Services)

APPEARANCES

John Gregoire, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Government Services), Kathleen Dillabough, Dennis Bedeau and Marsha Smith, Respondents

Jennifer Richards, Counsel

Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Warren Thomas, Diane Boisvert and Sonia Boudreau, Respondents

Eric O’Brien, Counsel

Alison Dewar, Respondent

Alexandra Lev-Farrell, Counsel

Workwise Occupational Assessment Centre Inc., Respondent

Tanya Padberg, Counsel

Dr. Ken Suddaby, Respondent

Elad Gafni, Counsel

Dr. Peter Judge, Respondent

Amanda Smallwood, Counsel

Liberal Party of Ontario, Respondent

Jack Segal, Counsel

1This Application was filed on September 10, 2012, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, creed, association with a person identified by a Code ground and reprisal.

2On October 2, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing that a summary hearing be held by teleconference pursuant to Rule 19A of its Rules of Procedure. Rule 19A.1 reads as follows:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

3The summary hearing was held on March 27, 2013. During the summary hearing, I heard from the applicant and the respondents’ counsels.

4In addition, I had before me the applicant’s Application which included 48 pages of documents related to the applicant’s past dealings with the respondents, many of them annotated with the applicant’s hand written comments. The applicant also filed a further 339 pages of materials to the Tribunal during the period December 2012 to March 2013. These materials also included written submissions and documents related to the applicant’s dealings with the respondents, again many of them annotated with additional hand written comments.

5The respondents were not required to file Reponses to the Application. Some of the respondents prepared written submissions or provided case law for the summary hearing.

BACKGROUND

6The applicant became an employee of the Government of Ontario in July 1989. In May 2006 he became a bilingual Registration Service Representative with the Ministry of Government Services’ Land Registry Office in Ottawa (the “Ministry”). The applicant’s bargaining agent is the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU).

7The applicant self identifies as a French Canadian male. He acknowledges that he has mental health issues.

8On October 28, 2010, the applicant filed a grievance stating, in part, that he was “the target of discrimination and harassment” by Kathleen Dillabough, his manager, as well as some of his co-workers. A copy of this grievance was before me. Ms. Dillabough is a named respondent.

9On November 10, 2010, the applicant filed a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (“WDHP”) complaint alleging Ms. Dillabough and named and unnamed co-workers subjected him to discriminatory treatment. A copy of this lengthy complaint was before me. The applicant states in a December 13, 2010 email to the manager of the Ministry’s WDHP section that his WDHP complaint is essentially the same as his October 28, 2010, grievance.

10In a letter dated March 2, 2011, Dennis Bedeau, a Deputy Director in the Ministry wrote to the applicant to say that his WDHP complaint against Ms. Dillabough was unsubstantiated and that his complaints against two of the other named co-workers were partially substantiated although not all of these complaints were violations under the WDHP Policy. The applicant did not find this resolution of his complaint satisfactory. The applicant has named Dennis Bedeau and Marsha Smith whom he identifies as WDHP investigators, as respondents.

11The applicant alleges that Diane Boisvert, the President of OPSEU Local 405, and Sonia Boudreau, an OPSEU Regional Staff Representative, did not sufficiently assist the applicant in pursuing his October 28, 2010 grievance during the period October 2010 to June 2011. The applicant has named OPSEU, the president of OPSEU, Warren Thomas, and Diane Boisvert and Sonia Boudreau as respondents.

12On June 6, 2011, the applicant filed a second grievance. A copy of this grievance was not before me. It appears this grievance again makes allegations of harassment and discrimination related to the applicant’s employment with the Ministry.

13The Application identifies the applicant’s last day of work as June 20, 2011.

14A hearing was scheduled before the Grievance Settlement Board to consider the applicant’s October 28, 2013 grievance. However, on June 24, 2011, the Ministry, OPSEU and the applicant with the assistance of an arbitrator, agreed to Minutes of Settlement settling both the applicant’s October 28, 2010 and June 6, 2011 grievances. As part of the settlement the applicant agreed to undergo an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

15Workwise Occupational Assessment Centre Inc. (“Workwise”) is an independent assessment centre which was engaged by the Ministry to arrange for the applicant’s IME.

16An IME was conducted on July 5, 2011, by Dr. Suddaby, a psychiatrist. He subsequently produced an IME report on July 5, 2011 (with an addendum dated August 31, 2011). Dr. Suddaby concluded that the applicant was completely medically unfit to return to his job duties. The applicant has named Dr. Suddaby as a respondent.

17Dr. Suddaby recommended in his IME report that the applicant undergo psychological testing. Consequently, Workwise referred the applicant to Dr. Judge, a psychologist, who conducted a further IME with the applicant on August 16, 2011. Dr. Judge produced an IME report on August 16, 2011 (with an Addendum dated August 31, 2011). Dr. Judge concluded that the applicant was not a candidate to return to his workplace given his current medical condition. The applicant has named Dr. Judge as a respondent.

18Workwise submitted a report to the Ministry dated September 8, 2011. Dr. Suddaby assisted in the preparation of this report. The report concludes, based on Dr. Judge’s and Dr. Suddaby’s findings, that the applicant suffers from medical conditions that would prevent the applicant from attending work and performing his job duties. The report notes that because of the applicant’s medical conditions the applicant has chronic difficulties with workplace interpersonal relationships and there are no specific current job restrictions or modifications which would allow the applicant to return to the workplace. The report further notes that the applicant’s medical conditions give rise to “persecutory untrue beliefs that interfere with the applicant collaborating and interacting in a normal fashion in the work environment”. The applicant has named Workwise as a respondent.

19The applicant told OPSEU that, pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement, he wanted another IME to be conducted by a different doctor. OPSEU, through its counsel, Alison Dewar, indicated to the applicant in an email dated October 9, 2011, that it would not be pursuing this request. Ms. Dewar was also present during the June 24, 2011 settlement discussions that led to the Minutes of Settlement. The applicant names Alison Dewar as a respondent.

20The Ministry and OPSEU met with the applicant on October 3, 2011. It appears this was to tell the applicant he would not be returning to work and that he had been approved for Short Term Sickness Plan (“STSP”) benefits. According to the Ministry the applicant is currently receiving Long-Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits.

DECISION

21The Application is dismissed against all the named respondents.

ANALYSIS

22In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

23At the hearing I also heard arguments that some of the applicant’s allegations should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code which states that an Application may be dismissed in whole or in part if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. I also heard arguments that some allegations should be dismissed for delay pursuant to section 34 of the Code given that they relate to incidents more than one year prior to the Application being filed. I rely on section 45.1 for part of my Decision.

24As noted, the applicant has provided copious materials about his employment history and experiences with the respondents. The applicant raises a broad range of allegations. It is relevant to note that some of these allegations are repeatedly referred to in the Application, the applicant’s further written materials and were raised at the hearing but many are referred to only briefly or in passing in the Application, in the further written materials provided or by the applicant at the hearing.

25The applicant clearly has a number of issues with how he has been treated by the respondents. However, it is not always evident from the Application, the additional written materials and the information the applicant provided at his hearing which specific actions of the respondents the applicant alleges are discriminatory and why. I note many of the allegations of mistreatment do not refer to Code related grounds. Many of the allegations that do refer to discrimination lack particulars. I have considered the allegations that, in my view, do raise Code related issues.

Allegations of Collusion and Discrimination

26The applicant’s central allegation is that the Ministry, Dr. Suddaby, Dr. Judge (and although not explicitly stated, presumably Workwise), OPSEU and Ms. Dewar, have colluded to take away the applicant’s job and deny the applicant’s rights to be accommodated at work.

27The applicant’s allegation that these respondents have colluded to deny him his rights centres, in my view, on allegations that Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s assessments about his mental health and their determinations that he was unfit to return to work are flawed and discriminatory.

28The applicant alleges that Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge knew each other and that the two doctors conspired in their determinations that he was unfit to return to work. He alleges that when he asked Workwise whether the two doctors knew each other he did not receive a clarifying response which he felt indicated that there was a deliberate effort to hide the nature of Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s relationship from him.

29The applicant alleges that Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge, whom he identifies as White Anglo Saxons, have discriminated against him because of his mental disabilities and because he is a French Canadian, born in Quebec. He alleges Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s assessments of his mental disabilities were wrong and that the two doctors intended to denigrate him because of his race. He notes that in making their assessments of his mental abilities and his fitness to return to work Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge could have gathered evidence of his job performance or could have spoken to witnesses or accepted the documents he wanted to provide to them but they did not. He notes in one of his written submissions that Dr. Suddaby is from Manitoba, and as a Westerner may have developed a hatred for French or may have been abused by French people and, accordingly, his motives should be examined. He alleges in a written submission that Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s IMEs are hate speech because these two respondents want to spread fear about the applicant for thinking differently or for having a culturally different point of view.

30I have not considered whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of establishing that Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s IME assessments constitute hate speech as there are no hate speech provisions under the Code.

31I am of the view that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can succeed in proving Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s medical assessments are discriminatory in the ways claimed.

32The applicant provides no specifics as to why, if Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge personally knew each other, that this is persuasive evidence that they collaborated against him and that such a collaboration is evidence that they discriminated against the applicant. The fact that Workwise may not have chosen to communicate information about the relationships of medical practitioners it utilizes does not establish or suggest in my view, that there was an effort to hide an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship between Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge.

33Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge were hired as independent, third party medical assessors. The applicant is challenging their professional opinions regarding his medical condition and his fitness to work. The applicant has not pointed to evidence that will, in my view, establish that Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s determinations about the nature of his mental disability and his ability to return to work were based on discriminatory considerations including the fact that he has an acknowledged mental disability. The applicant has not pointed to evidence that would potentially establish that he was treated differently by Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge in arriving at their assessments because of his mental health. And, importantly, as the Tribunal finds in Wilson v. Dixie Road Medical Association, 2011 HRTO 1607, disagreeing with a doctor’s medical assessment does not, in the absence of some additional indicator of discrimination, constitute an allegation of discrimination even if the medical assessment is wrong or based on inaccurate information.

34The applicant’s allegations that he was discriminated against by Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge because he is French Canadian is bald speculation. It is based solely on the fact that Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge are apparently White Anglo Saxons and the applicant’s theory that Dr. Suddaby, having come from Western Canada, may have developed a hatred of French Canadians. The applicant has not shown any facts or potential evidence that indicates a connection between Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s actual conduct and the applicant being French Canadian. I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the allegations of discrimination on these grounds will succeed.

35The applicant did submit that Ms. Dillabough inappropriately sent written instructions to Workwise in June 2011 outlining the issues that the Ministry wanted a doctor conducting an IME for the applicant to consider. He alleges that Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s final reports were written to tell the Ministry what it wanted. The applicant is of the view that this contact between Dillabough, Workwise and the nature of the IME reports reveals that the Ministry, Ms. Dillabough and Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge (and perhaps Workwise) were colluding to remove him from the workplace.

36The “written instructions” the applicant is referring to is a mandate letter sent by the Ministry to Workwise to identify issues it was of the view needed to be addressed in an IME assessment including an assessment of the applicant’s ability to return to work with or without accommodations. It is not evident that the nature of such an instructional letter is inappropriate. The letter provides direction to Workwise and indirectly to Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge who are required to conduct independent medical examinations. In my view, the applicant has no reasonable prospect of establishing that the Ministry, Ms. Dillabough and Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge (and perhaps Workwise) colluded or more importantly, for the purposes of his Application before the Tribunal, that Dr. Suddaby and Dr. Judge’s assessments are discriminatory or that the Ministry’s reliance on these assessments is discriminatory.

37The applicant’s allegation that OPSEU and Ms. Dewar colluded (and discriminated) against him appears to be based on their role in the June 24, 2011 settlement discussions that led to the Minutes of Settlement which included the provision that the applicant undergo an IME. It appears this allegation is based on a belief that OPSEU and Ms. Dewar unduly pressed the applicant into accepting a settlement that included an IME, which was also an interest of the Ministry and Ms. Dillabough and which ultimately led to the applicant’s not returning to the workplace.

38I do not find that the applicant has a reasonable prospect of proving that OPSEU and Ms. Dewar’s actions during the June 24, 2011 settlement process were discriminatory. Even assuming that OPSEU and its counsel, Ms. Dewar, shared a view with the Ministry and Ms. Dillabough that the Minutes of Settlement, including an IME for the applicant, were a reasonable settlement that the applicant should accept and even if OPSEU and Ms. Dewar encouraged and pressed the applicant to agree to the settlement this does not, in my view, indicate that OPSEU and Ms. Dewar discriminated against the applicant because of his mental health or other Code related grounds. Unions often encourage members to settle grievances. OPSEU and Ms. Dewar did not impose the settlement on the applicant. It was the applicant who made the decision to agree to the terms of the settlement. Moreover, the applicant indicated that he was initially of the view that the Minutes of Settlement and the IME he agreed to could lead to him returning to work on terms he found amenable. The fact that the applicant may now regret agreeing to some of the terms of the Minutes of Settlement given their outcomes does not suggest OPSEU and Ms. Dewar’s role in the settlement process discriminated against the applicant.

39I do note here that the applicant submits that he signed the June 24, 2011 Minutes of Settlement at a time he was suffering from sleep apnea which he submits affected his decision making abilities. This may be but this is evidence of the possible additional difficulties the applicant may have had in deciding whether to accept the terms of the proposed Minutes of Settlement. It is not evidence that the actions of OPSEU and Ms. Dewar during the settlement discussions were discriminatory in nature.

Allegations against the Ministry, Kathleen Dillabough, Dennis Bedeau and Marsha Smith prior to June 24, 2011.

40The applicant alleges that while working in the Ministry’s Land Registry Office he was subject to discriminatory treatment by Ms. Dillabough and other staff, particularly five female employees. At the hearing the applicant alleged that this treatment included being subject to harassment because he was male, French Canadian and believed in God. He alleged that five females he worked with harassed him, and deliberately isolated him in the workplace. He alleges in one of his written submissions that he was subject to a derogatory term for French Canadians by a fellow employee, a friend, which he did not report. He alleges that he was attacked because of his cultural differences, for example, because he had a French Canadian “joie de vivre” that was not shared by others in his office who were more reserved. He also appeared to suggest that his belief in God was another cultural difference that was held against him. In the Application he alleged that some Ministry managers (and OPSEU officials) have no faith in God or act that way but that he believes in God and has been persecuted for it.

41It is also evident from the written materials before me that the applicant is of the view that he was treated differently while working for the Ministry because he was seen to have a mental disability and that the Ministry and Ms. Dillabough failed in a duty to accommodate him by not requiring him to work with certain female employees who were harassing him and affecting his mental well-being.

42The applicant’s allegations of discriminatory treatment and harassment while at the Ministry prior to June 6, 2010 including the above cited instances are dismissed.

43I am of the view that the applicant’s allegations of discriminatory treatment based on disability and gender during this period were dealt with when the applicant’s grievances were settled on June 24, 2011. Accordingly, these allegations are dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code.

44The October 28, 2010 grievance which was before me alleges that the applicant was the “target of discrimination grounds –disability-failure to accommodate-age-gender-sex-double standard” by Kathleen Dillabough, and some co-workers. The grievance provides further details about this alleged discriminatory treatment by Ms. Dillabough and female co-workers. While the applicant’s June 6, 2011 grievance was not before me there was information to indicate that it, too, raised allegations of discrimination and harassment against Ms. Dillabough and others. At the hearing the Ministry requested that these allegations be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1. At the hearing the applicant did not submit that there were allegations of discrimination based on disability and sex in his Application in relation to events prior to June 24, 2011 that were not the subject of his grievances.

45In Dunn v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 2008 HRTO 149, the Tribunal found that where a party has settled a previous proceeding that included the essence of the human rights matter, the Application should be dismissed under s. 45.1. In my view section 45.1 applies in the present case to the applicant’s allegations of discrimination based on disability and gender while the applicant worked at the Ministry prior to June 24, 2011.

46The applicant’s allegations of discrimination based on creed, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin are dismissed. The applicant provides no particulars about specific actions taken by Ministry staff in support of his allegation that he was discriminated against because of creed, only a bald assertion that Ministry staff did not believe in God (or acted that way). I find that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of proving that he was treated differently on the basis of creed (i.e. because of his belief in God).

47The applicant’s allegations that he was discriminated against because he was French Canadian appear, from the applicant’s submissions to be based on several assertions. He alleges fellow employees resented his “joie de vivre” which he describes as a French Canadian characteristic which contrasted with the quieter behaviour of other employees. He alleges that comments he heard in his workplace lunchroom about Quebec getting special treatment like paid daycare for social programs and the fact that a French Canadian cleaner in the office was accused of stealing food from a fridge are evidence of an anti-French feeling in the office. He alleges that the fact that Ms. Dillabough is German in origin and grew up in Lower Town [in Ottawa] with a large number of Francophones may have caused her problems. He alleges that a fellow employee referred to him by the derogatory term “Jean Guy”, which he chose to ignore.

48I have carefully considered these allegations. However, I am not satisfied that the applicant has a reasonable prospect of proving that he was discriminated against because of his ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin. I find that the applicant’s general claim that he was discriminated against because he displayed a joie de vivre that he identifies as a cultural value lacks particulars. The applicant fails to identify in what ways he was treated differently for having a joie de vivre or how this attitude was seen by others as linked to his ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin. The applicant referred to comments made by others about Quebec politics and an employee who was French Canadian stealing food from the fridge. The applicant has not shown how this information constitutes evidence that he was treated differently in the workplace because he was French Canadian. The applicant suggests that Ms. Dillabough may have problems with Francophones given her upbringing. This is unsubstantiated speculation. I further note the applicant has made no identifiable allegations that Ms. Dillabough was an individual who treated him differently for being French Canadian.

49The applicant has made a specific allegation of discriminatory treatment stating he has been called a derogatory term by one fellow employee, described as a friend. The applicant states he ignored these comments. He states these comments were unreported to Ms. Dillabough or to the Ministry. I find there is no reasonable prospect that these alleged comments, even if proven to have occurred, would lead to a finding of discrimination against the named respondents, given they were never reported.

50The applicant further alleges that Kathy Dillabough did not hire any racial minority students during the five summers the applicant worked in the Land Registry Office. The applicant states in his Application that, accordingly, he is filing his Application, in part, on behalf of all Chinese and Black individuals over 16 years of age who may have applied for positions in the Ontario government in the past and have been denied employment.

51This allegation against Kathy Dillabough is dismissed. The Code does not permit an Application based on this type of allegation. Section 34(5) of the Code does permit an individual or organization to make an Application on behalf of an individual who consents to the Application. However, the purpose of section 34(5) is not to allow a broad “public interest” complaint as, it appears, is envisaged by the applicant.

52The Application identifies Dennis Bedeau and Marsha Smith as being involved in the Ministry’s investigation of the applicant’s 2010 WDHP complaint. As noted, the applicant disagreed with the WDHP investigation findings. According to the applicant’s materials he also requested during the WDHP investigation process that a WDHP investigator from the private sector be hired so that witnesses would feel freer to speak. He also contended that Mr. Bedeau, a Ministry manager, would be in a conflict of interest when investigating the applicant’s allegations against Ministry management. This request for a private investigator was denied.

53The applicant provides no information to indicate how Mr. Bedeau and Ms. Smith and/or the WDHP investigation process that was followed discriminated against him on a Code related ground. The fact the applicant disagreed with the investigation process and results does not in itself indicate that he was treated differently in the process because of a Code related ground. This allegation against Dennis Bedeau and Marsha Smith is dismissed.

OPSEU, Warren Thomas, Diane Boisvert and Sonia Boudreau and Alison Dewar

54The applicant’s alleges that Diane Boisvert and Sonia Boudreau, two OPSEU officials, failed to appropriately respond to his October 28, 2010 grievance. To support this contention the applicant provides a series of emails exchanged between the applicant and Ms. Boisvert and Ms. Boudreau that illustrates, in the applicant’s view, that these two respondents resisted his request to hold a Stage 2 meeting to consider his grievance.

55The Tribunal has held that it is not discrimination for a union or association not to file or pursue a human rights grievance unless the reason for doing so is based on one of the grounds in the Code. See Traversy v Mississauga Forefighters Association, 2009 HRTO 996. While the applicant was clearly frustrated with what he felt was unresponsive service from OPSEU the applicant did not allege that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by Ms. Boisvert and Ms. Boudreau. Accordingly, the allegation against these two respondents is dismissed.

56I have already determined that the applicant does not have a reasonable prospect of showing that OPSEU and Ms. Dewar discriminated against him during the June 28, 2011 settlement process. However, the applicant also alleges that in October 2011, OPSEU and Ms. Dewar, prevented the applicant from obtaining an IME from another doctor, contrary to the provisions of the Minutes of Settlement. The applicant may be of the view this is unfair and contrary to the Minutes of Settlement but this is not a Code related complaint.

The Liberal Party of Ontario

57The applicant wrote a letter to the Minister of Community and Social Services, Sandra Pupatello, in 2005 when the applicant was an employee of that Ministry. The letter raises a number of concerns about how the applicant was being treated in the workplace including allegations of harassment and discrimination. The applicant alleges that because of his 2005 letter to Ms. Pupatello, the Liberal Party of Ontario knew as of 2005 that the applicant was being subjected to discriminatory treatment and that knowing this the Ontario government “led by the liberals” should have taken steps to ensure that the applicant was free from abuse and discrimination.

58The Liberal Party of Ontario is not a properly named respondent. The applicant has mistakenly considered a Cabinet Minister in a Liberal elected Government to be acting as a member of the Liberal Party of Ontario rather than as a representative of the Government of Ontario. Accordingly, the application against the Liberal Party of Ontario is dismissed.

59For all these reasons the Application is dismissed.