Homick v. Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board, 2016 HRTO 111

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kevin Homick Applicant

-and-

Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Colin Johnston Date: January 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 111 Indexed as: Homick v. Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board

APPEARANCES

Kevin Homick, Applicant Gary Lister, Counsel

Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board, Respondent Jessica Koper, Counsel Christina Loebach, Student-at-Law

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The applicant works as a custodian for the respondent, Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board ("School Board") where he has been employed since 1979. He began his career as a part-time employee working at the School Board's Book Depository. In 1984, he transferred to a part-time custodial position. In 1986, he moved to a full-time position as custodian.

3The applicant was 57 years old at the time the events described in the Application took place. The applicant challenges the fact that he was denied a promotion to one of two foreperson positions in the School Board's operations and maintenance departments in July 2014. The successful candidates to those positions were 45 and 43 years old, respectively. The applicant also challenges the fact that he was refused interviews for three supervisor positions that were posted in February 2014 for Facilities Services Technical Supervisor, Supervisor of Maintenance, and Supervisor of Operations.

4The School Board operates 37 elementary schools and 10 high schools in Essex County. It employs approximately 157 full-time and 20 part-time custodial staff.

5In May 2014, the applicant applied for two foreperson positions, one in the School Board's operations department where he worked and the other in the maintenance department. Both positions are non-union. The applicant was selected for interviews for both jobs. His interview for the foreperson operations position took place on June 24, 2014, before a panel consisting of Colleen Norris (Manager of Human Resources & Policy Development), Gary McKenzie (Senior Manager of Facilities Services), and Ben Soullière (Supervisor of Operation Services). Thirteen candidates were interviewed for the position. The successful candidate was R.B. a custodian with the School Board for 19 years.

6The respondent submitted that it chose R.B. for the operations position based on number of factors including his work performance, his impressive references, and his score on the interview.

7With respect to the maintenance department, there were nine candidates for the foreperson position. The successful candidate for that position was an outside candidate, C.R. The respondent submitted that it chose C.R. because of his experience as a skilled trade and as supervisor of the maintenance staff at Casino Windsor.

8The respondent submitted that the applicant was not selected as the successful candidate for either position because he scored poorly on the interview and was considered by all of the panelists to be at best, an average employee. The applicant was not interviewed for the three supervisor positions in February 2014 because he lacked management experience.

THE EVIDENCE

9The parties relied on a number of documents which were entered on consent as exhibits at the hearing including: job postings for the five positions being challenged; resumes, cover letters, references and other supporting material for the applicant and the two incumbents to the foreperson positions; and the interview questions, scores and notes taken by the interview panelists.

Kevin Homick

10The applicant testified on his own behalf. He spoke at length about his experience and educational qualifications and how they related to the two foreperson positions. The applicant has a very extensive resume. While working full-time at the School Board he completed an undergraduate degree in liberal arts from the University of Windsor in 2005 and obtained a degree in Education from the same University in 2013. The applicant became licenced as a teacher in 2013 and occasionally teaches supply classes with the School Board. He explained that this experience provides him insight into the teacher-student relationship and is relevant to anyone working in a leadership position in an educational institution.

11While working full-time at the School Board, the applicant also earned two college diplomas from St. Clair College. The first was a diploma in Power Engineering, a 3 year program which he completed in 2002. As part of this program, the applicant did a job placement with a local hospital to learn how to operate the hospital's heating and cooling systems. The applicant explained that much of what he learned in this program would be useful to the role of foreperson maintenance.

12His second diploma was in Paralegal studies, a two year program which he completed in 2011-12. The applicant explained that much of what he learned in this program would be useful in the foreperson role, as he took courses in conflict resolution, employment law, human rights, workers' compensation and occupational health and safety.

13In response to the School Board's doubts about his supervisory experience, the applicant testified that when he worked at the Book Depository from 1979 to 1984, he supervised the work of students who were employed in the Depository.

14The applicant disputed the respondent's claim that he described himself as an "average employee" and that he was not a "cleaning machine". He stated that the respondent misconstrued what he said at the interview. What he said or meant to say was that he was an "average Joe" that he related well to other staff and did not view himself as being superior to his colleagues.

15The applicant stated that one of the reasons he applied for the foreperson positions was due to a medical condition involving his lower back. His hope was to move to a less physically demanding job. This was not pleaded in the Application. The applicant put into evidence medical documents to support his claim that he suffered from a lower back condition and that he requested accommodation in the summer of 2014. This request was made after the applicant was denied the promotions. The applicant does not claim that he requested to move into the foreperson position as part of an accommodation. The evidence put forward provided some context to explain why he was applying for management positions. There is no allegation that the applicant was discriminated against on the basis of disability or that the respondent failed to accommodate him.

16The applicant stated that approximately two weeks after his interview in June 2014, he saw Mr. Soullière who was doing rounds at his school. The applicant stated that during the course of their brief conversation, Mr. Soullière asked him when he intended to retire. The applicant responded that he had no intention of retiring in the near future and wanted to continue on in his career and move up in the organization.

17The applicant testified that there was no question that the panel members at his interview were aware of his age. He pointed to the seniority list, which was posted by the Union every year and listed his seniority to 1987. This would have given the respondent some indication of his relative age. Moreover, the applicant submitted that the individuals on the interview panel knew that he was eligible to retire on unreduced pension given his combined age and years of service.

18The applicant was scheduled for a second interview for the maintenance position on July 2, 2014 but that interview was cancelled. The applicant felt that this was done intentionally, as the respondent was not genuinely interested in promoting him to a foreperson position.

19Finally, the applicant also commented on the qualifications of the two successful candidates. With respect to R.B., he noted that his educational qualifications included a College diploma in Law and Security and the School Board's internal leadership program. With respect to C.R., he noted that he had a certificate in Environmental Systems and had taken courses in facility maintenance. C.R. did not hold a University or College degree. In the applicant's view, neither candidate's educational qualifications were as comprehensive as his own.

20As to the three supervisor positions, the applicant testified that he applied for these jobs in February 2014 but was denied interviews for each position. He spoke to Colleen Norris to find out why he did not receive an interview and was told that to become a supervisor he needed to first work in the foreperson position. His denial of the foreperson, therefore, meant he would be excluded him from advancement in the organization.

21The respondent called three witnesses to testify: Colleen Norris, Ben Soullière and Gary McKenzie. All three witnesses sat on the interview panel for the operations foreperson position. All three witnesses testified that the applicant did not score well on his interview and had trouble answering some of the questions. Each of the interviewees recalled that the applicant referring to himself as an "average employee" and "not a cleaning machine".

Colleen Norris

22Colleen Norris was the first to testify on behalf of the respondent. Ms. Norris has held the position of Senior Manager of Human Resources and Policy Development since 2008. Ms. Norris is responsible for hiring and promoting both non-union and unionized staff at the School Board.

23Ms. Norris explained that the applicant was not considered for the three supervisor positions, which were posted back in February 2014, because the School Board was looking for candidates with a University degree in either Engineering or Architecture and 5 years of experience in a supervisory role. The applicant did not meet these qualifications. Ms. Norris did not question the applicant's educational credentials. She simply felt that he did not have the supervisory experience and engineering background to move into one of the Supervisor roles.

24Ms. Norris submitted that age was never a consideration in the hiring process for any of the candidates for the supervisor positions.

25She testified that she met the applicant after February 2014 to go over what he could do to improve his chances of being a successful candidate in the future. She recommended that he take the School Board's leadership program.

26She did not consider the applicant's experience working in the Book Depository as relevant, as the role involved supervising students, not unionized staff. The experience also dated back to the late 1970s, early 1980s. The applicant had no recent experience supervising staff.

27Ms. Norris testified that there were 18 candidates who applied for the foreperson position in operations and 13 candidates were selected for interviews including the applicant. As for the maintenance job, there were 12 applicants who applied for the position, of those six were chosen to be interviewed. Among all of the candidates, there were three individuals including the applicant, who the School Board chose to interview for both positions. Ms. Norris explained that a decision was made after the first round of interviews (for the operations position), not to interview the three candidates a second time as it would be redundant. The applicant was, therefore, not singled out when his interview was cancelled.

28She explained that the interviews for each candidate were approximately 30 minutes in length. Each candidate was asked the same questions and were scored out of 50.

29She explained that the interview was only one component of what the panel considered in selecting the successful candidate. The panel also reviewed the candidate's resume, reference letters, and other material submitted in support of their job applications.

30Ms. Norris stated once the interviews were complete the panel short-listed two potential candidates neither being the applicant. There were eight candidates who scored higher than the applicant. The successful candidate R.B. was ultimately chosen because he scored higher in the interview and had a reputation as an outstanding custodian. It was thought that he commanded the respect of his peers. Ms. Norris noted that R.B. had a number of reference letters from School Principals who he worked under. The references were all impressive.

31Ms. Norris acknowledged that she had access to the ages of the internal candidates but did not review this information until after the Application was filed. She stated that she thought that the applicant was probably in his late 50s.

32She did not deny that the was applicant was qualified for both foreperson positions. She simply felt that he was not the best candidate.

33She conceded that R.B. had less educational qualifications then the applicant. R.B. had a College diploma from St. Clair College in Law and Security. She also conceded that the successful candidate for the maintenance position, C.R. had neither a University nor College degree and had no experience working in an educational institution. Nevertheless, she submitted that C.R. had a lot of relevant experience working as a skilled trade and holding the position of supervisor of the maintenance staff at the Casino.

34Ms. Norris admitted that the courses that the applicant had taken as part of his Paralegal diploma were relevant to the foreperson position including courses in conflict resolution, employment law, and occupational health & safety. She acknowledged that those courses were more comprehensive then the Leadership Program offered by the School Board.

Gary McKenzie

35The respondent's second witness was Gary McKenzie the Senior Manager of Facilities. Mr. McKenzie sat on both interview panels for the foreperson positions. He was also involved in the hiring process for the three supervisors in February 2014. He explained that the applicant was not interviewed for the three supervisor positions because he lacked experience in a supervisory role. The successful candidates for those positions had all worked as forepersons before moving into the supervisor position.

36Mr. McKenzie did not consider the applicant to be a competitive candidate for either of the foreperson positions because he scored low on the interview. He stated that the interview panelists shared the opinion that the applicant was at best an average employee.

37As the Senior Manager of Facilities, he was familiar with both men's work. He contrasted the applicant's work performance with that of R.B. who he described as exceptional custodian who went above and beyond his duties. R.B. was often selected to mentor new custodians because the employer wanted new staff to learn from the best. As far as he was aware, the applicant was never asked to participate in the mentorship program.

38He explained that R.B. scored higher in the interview than the applicant. His presentation was well organized. The applicant, on the other hand, struggled with answering some of the questions. R.B. also provided a number of impressive reference letters from Principals across the School Board.

39He explained that the other successful candidate, C.R. also had a standout interview. He was what the School Board was looking for in a maintenance foreperson, someone with experience supervising maintenance staff in a unionized environment. He also was a licenced tradesperson and had management experience in the construction industry. He also had experience working with commercial heating and cooling systems.

40Mr. McKenzie acknowledged that the other individuals on the interview panel for the maintenance job did not get a chance to meet with the applicant. He explained that he shared the applicant's score and answers on the first interview with the second panel. He conceded that the questions posed in the two interviews were not identical and that some of the questions posed in the second interview were more specific to the maintenance job.

41He acknowledged that the applicant's Diploma in Engineering was relevant to the maintenance job and appeared more comprehensive then the education that C.R. referenced on his resume. In fact, when questioned about C.R's resume, the witness seemed to know little about his educational qualifications.

42Mr. McKenzie acknowledged on cross-examination that it was costly to hire and train new staff and that ideally it was best if the successful candidate remained in the job for a number of years. With that said, he added it was impossible to predict how long a candidate would stay in their job. The School Board had no control whether someone left their position for another job or another employer.

Ben Soullière

43The respondent's final witness was Ben Soullière, Supervisor for Operations. Prior to becoming a supervisor, Mr. Soullière held the position of operations foreperson and was the applicant's immediate supervisor for approximately four years.

44Mr. Soullière was one of the successful candidates for the Supervisor of Operations position that was posted in February 2014. He explained that historically the School Board promoted those who had experience working as foreperson to the supervisor position. His promotion was, therefore, not unusual given the four years he worked in the foreperson role.

45Mr. Soullière sat on the interview panel for the operations position but was not involved in the selection of the candidate for the maintenance position.

46He was familiar with the work of both the applicant and the successful candidate R.B. He stated that when the applicant described himself as only an "average employee" it was in line with his reputation in the workplace.

47He testified that what he was looking for in a candidate who had a strong work ethic and commanded the respect of his peers.

48He described R.B as such a candidate. He explained that R.B. was regularly asked to mentor new custodians because the School Board wanted new staff to learn from someone with a good work ethic.

49He stated that R.B. was the successful candidate because he interviewed well, had great references, and had a history of mentoring and training other custodians. He acknowledged that R.B. was younger than the applicant, but assumed that the applicant was closer in age to himself, in his early 50s.

50He explained that after the interviews were completed the interview panel selected what they thought were the four top candidates. This list was then reduced to the two best candidates. The panel then met a second time and decided which of the two candidates would be selected. The applicant was never considered as one of the top candidates.

51He disputed the applicant's evidence that in the weeks following the interview he approached the applicant and asked when he intended to retire. He recalled a conversation that he had with the applicant about his niece who was in College at the same time as the applicant. But denied that the two discussed anything about the applicant's retiring. He conceded that the decision to hire R.B. was made about three weeks after the interviews were completed. However, since the applicant was not short-listed for the position he was not given any further consideration after his interview date.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

52Although the Application challenged the denial of five job postings in total, the focus for the applicant at the hearing was on the two foreperson positions.

53The applicant reviewed the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and submitted that they all acknowledged that was qualified for the foreperson positions. His educational qualifications were far superior to the qualifications of the successful candidates. He had much longer experience working at the School Board in the position of custodian. His educational accomplishments, which included two University degrees and two College diplomas in Engineering and as a Paralegal, demonstrated that he was someone with initiative who was constantly improving himself.

54Given his age and years of service, the applicant argued that the respondent was well aware that he was soon eligible to retire with an actuarially unreduced pension. The applicant asserted that the respondent had no interest in promoting him to a new position, knowing that he was eligible for early retirement. Put simply, the School Board was not willing to invest the time, money and effort to put the applicant into a new job if he was going to retire in the near future.

55The applicant also pointed to the fact that his interview for the maintenance position was cancelled. This, in his view, was evidence the respondent had closed its mind to even considering him for that position.

56The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Application should be dismissed, as there was no evidence that the applicant's age was a factor in its decision-making process.

57With respect to the three supervisor positions posted in February 2014, the respondent submitted that the applicant was not interviewed because he did not have any supervisory experience. The respondent pointed to the fact that historically the School Board had hired individuals who had experience working as forepersons into the supervisor role.

58As for the foreperson positions, the respondent submitted that it chose the best candidates for the positions. In case of R.B., the decision to promote him was based on his reputation as an exceptional custodian, his years of mentoring other custodians, his performance at the interview, and his reference letters. In the case of C.R., it was because of his experience as supervisor of maintenance staff at the Windsor Casino, his experience with commercial heating and cooling systems, and his experience as a qualified tradesperson.

59The respondent submitted that age was never a consideration in selection of job candidates. The respondent did not dispute that its witnesses knew the applicant was in his mid-50s. Nevertheless, it pointed out that the average age of the internal candidates interviewed for both foreperson positions was 51.5 years old. The respondent stated it has no knowledge as to the age of the external candidates

60The respondent questioned whether the difference in age between the applicant and the two incumbents was even relevant given the small difference in their respective ages.

ANALYSIS

61The onus rests on the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities that discrimination occurred. There is an initial burden on the applicant to establish a prima facie case of discrimination that would then shift the evidentiary burden on a respondent to provide a non-discriminatory explanation or defence. The Tribunal will decide the case on the basis of all the evidence that was presented to determine whether the applicant has satisfied the legal burden of establishing discrimination on a balance of probabilities. See, Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155 at para. 29 and Peel Law Association v. Pieters 2013 ONCA 396 at paras. 80 – 90. In cases involving job promotions, the Tribunal has found the following elements to be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination:

a. the applicant was qualified for the particular job;

b. the applicant was not promoted to the position; and

c. a considerably younger candidate who was no better qualified than the applicant obtained the position;

See, Clennon v. Toronto East General Hospital ("Clennon"), 2009 HRTO 1242 and Girdharrie v. Cardinal Fasteners ("Girdharrie"), 2012 HRTO 430.

62Was the applicant qualified for the foreperson positions? The qualifications for both positions are described in the job postings. The qualifications include: a post-secondary diploma in building and maintenance, business management or a related field, or an equivalent amount of education and experience; computer skills; minimum five years experience in building and maintenance; previous supervisory experience (an asset); organization, planning and communication skills; and experience working an unionized workforce. In the case of the maintenance position there was an additional qualification of a working knowledge of HVAC, boilers, electrical/plumbing repairs and other maintenance systems.

63The applicant has 30 years of experience working as a custodian with the School Board. He has a College diploma in Power Engineering, which included placement working with HVAC system. He has worked in a unionized environment for over 30 years and has some limited supervisory experience.

64Based on the evidence before me, I accept that the applicant was qualified for the two foreperson positions. It appears on the evidence that both successful candidates were also qualified for the positions.

65As to the difference in ages, I am of the view that the incumbents (aged 43 and 45) were not substantially younger then the applicant (aged 57). Nevertheless, the applicant's evidence in this case raises questions as to why he was not chosen as a successful candidate. It is notable that the applicant had many years of custodial experience and in some respects was more qualified than the two incumbents. This is particularly true with respect to the applicant's educational qualifications.

66For these reasons, I accept that the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination.

67Once a prima facie case of discrimination is established, the evidentiary burden shifts to the respondent to provide a rational explanation that its actions were not discriminatory. The respondent submits that incumbents to the foreperson positions were both superior candidates to the applicant. With respect to R.B., the respondent submits that he was an exceptional custodian. Someone who was respected by his peers and was utilized to mentor new custodians. R.B. performed well at the interview and scored much higher than the applicant. R.B. also had a number of references from Principals who worked in the Catholic School Board system and praised his outstanding work as a custodian.

68I also heard the evidence of Mr. Soullière who was the direct supervisor of the applicant. He described the applicant as an "average employee". Mr. Soullière was also familiar with the work of R.B. and confirmed the message echoed in R.B.'s many reference letters that he was an outstanding employee.

69There is no question that the applicant has a very impressive resume and that he has demonstrated great initiative to improve himself outside of the workplace by obtaining a total of four post-secondary degrees/diplomas at the University and College level. I accept that the applicant's educational qualifications were relevant to the positions in question with respect to his diploma in Engineering and the courses he took related to his Paralegal legal degree.

70A review of the candidate's resumes and supporting material supports a finding that the applicant's educational qualifications were superior to those of the two incumbents.

71With that said, I cannot ignore the fact that educational qualifications were not the only factors the respondent was entitled to consider. The factors that are relevant to a job competition will depend on the job itself. It is clear from the evidence that the foreperson job is a frontline supervisory position. The person in that role is responsible for the day-to-day supervision of custodial and maintenance staff. This is not a position in human resources or a position as an Engineer. Therefore, the applicant's educational qualifications although impressive may not have as much of a bearing on the function of the position as other qualifications such as work performance or experience supervising staff.

72I accept the respondent's evidence that the applicant was viewed as at best an average employee. Both Ben Soullière and Gary McKenzie had firsthand experience managing the applicant and were in a position to assess his work performance over a long period.

73I accept that the same was true with respect to R.B. in that both Ben Soullière and Gary McKenzie had insight into his actual work performance and both shared the view that he was an outstanding custodian. This finding is reinforced by the letters of reference, which support R. B.'s job application.

74The applicant also raised concerns about the fairness of the job competition process itself. For example, the applicant was not given the opportunity to meet with the second interview panel, who was charged with the decision to hire the maintenance foreperson. His interview score was based on the questions posed in the first interview, which were somewhat different from those posed in the second interview.

75It appears on the evidence that the applicant was not the only candidate to have the second interview cancelled. The respondent also cancelled the interviews of the other two candidates who applied for both jobs. There is no evidence to suggest that this decision was made for discriminatory reasons. Rather, the respondent's explanation for why the interviews were cancelled appears reasonable in the circumstances. The fact that there were differences with respect to two of the questions posed in the second interview does not raise an inference of discriminatory conduct. The applicant states that had he the opportunity to answer these questions his interview score may have been higher.

76It may be true that there were certain irregularities in the interview process, which disadvantaged the applicant. However, it is not the role of the Tribunal to decide matters of general fairness that are unrelated to alleged discrimination under the Code: O'Brien v. Kingston (City) 2015 HRTO 572 at paragraph 23.

77As to the allegation that Ben Soullière spoke to the applicant about his intentions to retire, I must consider this evidence in light of all of the surrounding circumstances. I note that this allegation was not raised in the original Application. Ben Soullière denied that this conversation ever took place.

78Had the conversation taken place then according to the evidence of the applicant, Ben Soullière was told that the applicant had no intentions of retiring any time soon and that his goal was to advance in the organization. Based on the applicant's theory of the case, the respondent ignored these comments and proceeded with the assumption that he would retire shortly.

79All three of the respondent's witnesses testified and I accept their evidence that the applicant was not short-listed, as a candidate for either foreperson position. If that is the case then it seems unlikely that Ben Soullière would have a conversation with the applicant in the weeks following the interview to inquire as to whether he intended to retire in the near future. For these reasons, I prefer the evidence of Ben Soullière that there was no discussion regarding the prospects of the applicant's retirement in the weeks following the applicant's interview.

80The applicant concedes that there is no direct evidence of age discrimination in this case. Rather the evidence is based on circumstantial evidence. This is not unusual in human rights cases. The ultimate issue in this case is whether an inference of discrimination based on circumstantial evidence is more probable then the explanation offered by the respondent: See Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155.

81It is clear that the applicant was qualified for both foreperson position based on the qualifications set out on the job posting. Nevertheless, the respondent did not simply rely on the candidate's academic qualifications but focused on other factors including the work performance in the case of R.B.; and experience supervising others in the case of C.R. These are valid considerations given the nature of the positions in question.

82There is little evidence to suggest that the respondent's decision-making was influenced, in any way, by the age of the candidates. After a review of all of the evidence in this case, it appears more probable that the respondent's decision-making was based on a view that the two incumbents were simply better candidates. For all of these reasons, I conclude that age was not a factor in the respondent's decision not to promote the applicant.

REPRISAL UNDER THE CODE

83At the hearing, the applicant raised an issue regarding possible reprisal for bringing forward his complaint. The applicant testified that when he returned to work following the 2014 summer break, he received a letter from the respondent complaining about his work during the summer clean up. He then spoke to his summer replacement who told him that management instructed him not to complete certain work over the summer and leave it for the applicant to complete when he returned in the Fall. The applicant then went and spoke to his union representative who told him that the employer was after him and was trying to get his co-workers to turn against him. These allegations were not set out in the Application itself.

84In Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at paragraph 31, the Tribunal emphasized that, in order to establish a violation of section 8 of the Code regarding reprisal, an applicant must demonstrate an evidentiary link between the applicant's invocation of rights and the retaliatory conduct by the respondent:

The prohibition against reprisal is an important provision in the Code. Its purpose is to ensure that individuals may "claim and enforce" the fundamental rights embodied in the Code without fear or intimidation...

In order to prove reprisal, a complainant (now an applicant) must establish that the respondent engaged in an action, or threat, which was intended as a retaliation for the claiming or enforcement of a right under the Code. Unlike an allegation of discrimination, where intention is not a necessary element to prove a violation, where reprisal is alleged, the complainant must establish that the action was taken with an intent to punish or retaliate. See: Jones, supra; Jones v. Amway of Canada Ltd., 2001 CanLII 26217 (ON HRT), 2001 CanLII 26217 (ON H.R.T.); Ketola v. Value Propane Ltd., 2002 CanLII 46510 (ON HRT), 2002 CanLII 46510 (ON H.R.T.); Moffatt v. Kinark Child & Family Services (1998), 1998 CanLII 29857 (ON HRT), 35 C.H.R.R. D/205 (Ont. Bd. Inq.).

85The reprisal allegations raised by the applicant appear to deal with issues involving work that was left uncompleted over the summer break. There is no evidence to suggest that the employer's actions were intended to punish or retaliate against the applicant. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant raised any issue regarding his rights under the Code at this time. In an email dated July 18, 2014, the applicant wrote to Colleen Norris expressing his disappointment over not being chosen as a successful candidate for the foreperson positions. The applicant did not raise any issues regarding age discrimination. These allegations were not raised until sometime later when the Application was filed. For these reasons, I do not see any basis for a finding that the respondent engaged in any reprisal under the Code.

ORDER

86The Application is, hereby dismissed.