Swartzentruber v. Securitas Canada Limited, 2016 HRTO 1515

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dinah Swartzentruber Applicant

-and-

Securitas Canada Limited, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Darren Blewitt and Chris Dahmer Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: November 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1515 Indexed as: Swartzentruber v. Securitas Canada Limited

APPEARANCES

Dinah Swartzentruber, Applicant Self-represented

Securitas Canada Limited and Darren Blewitt, Respondents Daniel McDonald, Counsel

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada and Chris Dahmer, Respondents Ted Kovacs, Counsel

United Steelworkers, Local 9597, Affected Party Sherry Charette, Representative

1This Application, which was filed March 24, 2015, alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). December 12, 2014 is identified as the date of the last event upon which the Application is based. The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in the following: her rate of pay; overtime; hours of work or holiday; promotion and workplace opportunities; scheduling; discipline; comments, displays, jokes, and harassment; poisoned work environment; faulty investigation; and attempts to settle human rights matters through her union, United Steelworkers, Local 9597 (“the union”). She attached to her Application, a number of grievances that had been filed on her behalf by the union, and a narrative outlining her allegations, commencing on July 7, 2013 and continuing until January 2015.

2The issues in the narrative can be summarized as:

• Discipline issued for not wearing a proper uniform and listening to music on a cell phone while being on unreported break on July 7, 2013 (“the July 2013 incident”);
• Unequal and excessive discipline issued to the applicant compared with discipline issued to her male colleagues relating to the July 2013 incident;
• Removal of shifts in July 2013;
• Unequal shift assignments;
• Comment about the applicant’s clothing in August 2013;
• Comment about the applicant being on break on August 20, 2013;
• Reporting a blocked doorway as being unsafe on September 5, 2013 and being told that the reporting was rude;
• Multiple requests to review her employee file in September 2013;
• Settlement discussions on September 10, 2013 about her grievances;
• Forced overtime on December 20, 2013;
• Meetings about her attitude on December 27, 2013;
• Grievances removed in May 2014, but not finding out until June/July 2014;
• Requesting in August 2014 a formal complaint be made about a co-worker’s treatment towards the applicant;
• Discussions about quitting versus performing light duties on December 12, 2014; and,
• Flawed investigation or failure to investigate into complaints made by applicant about co-worker.

3A preliminary/summary hearing was held by teleconference call to hear the parties’ submissions on a number of issues (“the conference call hearing”).

4As against the respondents Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada (“Toyota”) and the personal respondent Chris Dahmer (“Mr. Dahmer”), the Tribunal heard submissions about whether:

a. There is no reasonable prospect of success against these respondents; b. the allegations are untimely against these two respondents, and if so, whether there is a good faith explanation for their delay; c. the grievance process has addressed allegations against these respondents and section 45.1 of the Code applies; and, d. the personal respondent should be removed as a respondent.

5As against the respondents Securitas Canada Ltd. (“Securitas”) and the personal respondent Darren Blewitt (“Mr. Blewitt”), the Tribunal heard submissions about whether:

e. The allegations are untimely against these two respondents before March 24, 2014, and if so, whether if there is a good faith explanation for the delay; f. The issues against them were resolved during the grievance process and it would be an abuse of process for the Application to continue against these two respondents; and g. there is no reasonable prospect of success against these respondents.

6All of the parties participated in the conference call hearing. The applicant’s union was also present during the call. It did not make any submissions.

The Applicant’s Submissions

7The applicant submitted that Securitas is her employer and Mr. Blewitt is her supervisor. She conceded that Toyota was not her employer, but submitted that she worked on Toyota property and was expected to follow their rules, policies and procedures, as well as those of Securitas. Securitas takes directions from Toyota, and Mr. Blewitt takes direction from Mr. Dahmer who is an employee of Toyota. Mr. Dahmer initiated concerns to Securitas and Mr. Blewitt about what occurred on July 7, 2013, which is why, the applicant submits, Toyota and Mr. Dahmer should continue to be named as respondents.

8The applicant submitted that her allegations, when viewed sequentially, are timely and there is less than a year from the date of the last event to the date that the Application was filed. She submitted that her initial allegations against Toyota and Mr. Dahmer are untimely if examined on their own, but submitted that her allegations are sequential to the end. The allegations against Securitas and Mr. Blewitt are timely as they are sequential.

9The applicant submitted that it was her understanding that she could not file an Application until the grievance process had concluded. She was told this by lawyers at the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“the Centre”) and other lawyers who she spoke to. She suggested that she was told this was well by the Tribunal. She could not recall the names of any of the people or lawyers that she spoke to and, apart from the Centre, could not afford to retain them. She submitted that she had spoken to a lawyer in or around August 2013 and had been in contact with the Centre from 2013, continuously, until the day before the summary/preliminary hearing. She filed several grievances, but they did not address all the issues that she raised in her Application.

10The grievances that the applicant filed were not against Toyota or Mr. Dahmer, but only against Securitas and Mr. Blewitt. It took almost one year for the three grievances to be completed and she alleges that she was not permitted to do anything during that time. The grievances did not completely rectify all the issues, such as those pertaining to Toyota and Mr. Dahmer (see para. 13 below).

11Mr. Dahmer should continue to be named as a personal respondent as he provided information, which was inaccurate, to Securitas and Mr. Blewitt about the July 2013 incident, and he identified her in an email which is discriminatory. The subsequent investigation into those allegations was flawed and Mr. Dahmer should have overseen the investigation and addressed the different types of discipline that was issued to her and her male co-workers.

12Mr. Blewitt should continue to be named as a personal respondent as he did not treat the applicant like her male co-workers and did not follow policies and procedures.

13With respect to the grievances that she filed, the applicant asserts that they do not amount to an abuse of process as they dealt with one issue and not the excessive and unequal discipline she received, gender discrimination, and the removal from her job. It is 100% gender based discrimination, the applicant submitted, because her male co-workers received less discipline than she did.

14During her reply submissions, the applicant stated that she was not proceeding with her allegations from January 2015. She stated that they were not relevant and that she was not proceeding with them.

The Respondents Toyota and Mr. Dahmer’s Submissions

15Toyota and Mr. Dahmer submit that the applicant is an employee of Securitas and Securitas is a commercial service provider of site security services at Toyota’s locations in Southern Ontario. Mr. Dahmer works for Toyota and managed the commercial contract for services for Toyota with Securitas. Toyota and Mr. Dahmer submit they are not the applicant’s employer and have no knowledge of the terms of the collective agreement between the applicant’s employer, Securitas, and her union. There are, they submit, no Code discrimination allegations against them with respect to employer, as required by section 5 of the Code.

16Toyota and Mr. Dahmer submit that the only mention in the Application about them specifically is in relation to the incident that took place on July 7, 2013 that Mr. Dahmer observed. He reported that incident to Securitas and to Mr. Blewitt and others. They submit that there is no prima facie breach of the Code or link to the Code with respect to Mr. Dahmer’s reporting of what he observed. Even assuming the allegations to be true, the allegations do not establish discrimination or harassment under the Code and there is no reasonable prospect of success of the allegations against them.

17Toyota and Mr. Dahmer request that Mr. Dahmer be removed as a personal respondent as he was acting in the course of his duties at all material times. There are no direct or indirect allegations of harassment against him specifically, and while Toyota denies there was harassment or discrimination under the Code, it accepts liability for his actions.

18Further, they submit, the allegations against them are untimely as they are more than a year before the date the Application was filed as the concerns that Mr. Dahmer reported to Securitas were in July 2013. Subsequent allegations set out in the Application pertain to the other parties and not Toyota or Mr. Dahmer. The applicant has not provided a good faith explanation for the delay in filing an Application as against them, and the Application should be dismissed.

The Respondents Securitas and Mr. Blewitt’s Submissions

19Securitas and Mr. Blewitt submit that all of the allegations that pre-date March 7, 2014 should be dismissed as untimely. The allegations that pre-date March 7, 2014 do not constitute a “series of incidents” within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) of the Code as they pertain to different people at different geographical work locations. There are significant gaps of time in the narrative and there was an ongoing grievance process.

20With respect to the applicant’s assertion that she obtained legal advice from the Centre and other lawyers about being precluded from filing an Application while the grievances were outstanding, Securitas and Mr. Blewitt submit that this is not a good faith explanation for delay. The applicant sought to pursue her rights through the grievance process rather than by filing an Application, this is not a situation of duress and instead the applicant is a capable advocate. If the legal advice was erroneous, then the applicant has a remedy in another forum, but not before the Tribunal.

21Furthermore, they submit, the three grievances that the applicant filed about the July 2013 discipline infractions were resolved between Securitas, Mr. Blewitt, the applicant and the union. Minutes of settlement were signed for one of the grievances, dated September 10, 2013, and the other two were resolved in October 2013. The applicant received the agreed upon settlement monies. The applicant took advantage of the settlement and it would be an abuse of process to allow her to continue with issues that were fully and conclusively resolved during the grievance process.

22Securitas and Mr. Blewitt submitted that there is no reasonable prospect of success based upon sex with respect to the remaining allegations against it. They submitted that the applicant does not allege that the treatment to which she was subjected, including her allegations of being bullied and concerns not investigated, were because of her gender. They submitted the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to address allegations of unfairness.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The January 2015 Allegation

23I am not considering the applicant’s January 2015 allegation as part of my reasoning given she stated during her reply submissions that she was no longer pursuing that allegation. Accordingly, the date of the last event upon which the Application is based is now December 12, 2014.

The Allegations against Toyota and Mr. Dahmer

24The Application as against Toyota and Mr. Dahmer is dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, I do not need to decide the other issues against Toyota and Mr. Dahmer, as identified in para. 4 above.

25As set out in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal’s seminal case about the summary hearing process, at paras. 8 to 10:

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations 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 allege may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus on 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.

In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about those reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, where there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, the application may be dismissed following the summary hearing.

26In this case, the applicant alleges that Toyota and Mr. Dahmer discriminated against her on the basis of sex when Mr. Dahmer observed the applicant and two of her male co-workers on July 7, 2013 sitting in the cafeteria and listening to music, without wearing all of their uniforms, when they were supposed to be working. Mr. Dahmer sent an email to the Securitas management, including Mr. Blewitt, about his observations. Subsequently, the applicant and her co-workers were disciplined by Securitas.

27Apart from Mr. Dahmer’s email to Securitas, which the applicant alleges contains incorrect information, there is no evidence to which the applicant can point that bring either Toyota or Mr. Dahmer into the process subsequently utilized by Securitas in investigating into Mr. Dahmer’s observations or imposing discipline on the applicant and her co-workers. Apart from Mr. Dahmer’s email, there are no other allegations against either Mr. Dahmer or Toyota in the Application.

28Upon reviewing Mr. Dahmer’s email, and the allegations against Toyota and Mr. Dahmer in the Application, there is no link between these respondents and the applicant’s allegations of discrimination on the basis of sex. Even if some of the information in the email in factually incorrect, the applicant has not pointed to anything which would lead to a conclusion that errors are because of her sex. In fact, the applicant appears to be asserting that she, as a female, received more discipline than did her male co-workers and the discipline was imposed by Securitas. Accordingly, there is no reasonable prospect of success against Toyota and Mr. Dahmer and the Application is dismissed against them.

The Allegations against Securitas and Mr. Blewitt

Abuse of Process

29The applicant was disciplined for her actions on July 7, 2013, specifically taking an unauthorized break and, during that break, using her personal phone and listening to music and not wearing her required uniform. On July 10, 2013, she filed three grievances, which were referred to during the submissions of the parties, pertaining to each of these alleged infractions.

30A letter sent by the union to Mr. Blewitt, dated July 10, 2013, was referred to in the parties’ submissions. That correspondence, found at tab 4 of Securitas and Mr. Blewitt’s book of documents filed for the summary/preliminary hearing, alleges that the applicant was “excessively disciplined” for the three infractions. The union’s letter notes that a co-worker also received discipline and requests copies of any previous discipline in relation to each of the discipline issued. To me, this suggests that the issues of excessive discipline and unequal discipline were raised in the grievances.

31The parties reached a settlement on the three grievances, with terms of settlement signed in September 2013 for one of the grievances, terms of settlement dated May 29, 2014 pertaining to the three grievances and email exchanges setting out the settlement agreement. The applicant received the monies representing a settlement for the other two grievances, and thus received the benefit of the settlement. Having reviewed the terms of settlement, and the email exchanges between Securitas and the union in relation to the grievances which Securitas filed, I agree with Securitas and Mr. Blewitt that any and all issues arising from the July 2013 discipline were resolved by the 2013 settlement or had the potential to be resolved. Furthermore, the applicant was represented by the union during these matters. It would be an abuse of process to permit litigation before the Tribunal on any issues pertaining to the July 2013 incident, its discipline and subsequent settlements.

32In Dunn v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 2008 HRTO 149, at paras. 33 to 35, the Tribunal discussed the importance of settlements in other forums and the impact they have on applications filed before the Tribunal. It states:

The Code and the Tribunal’s Rules support, facilitate and enforce the final and binding settlement of human rights proceedings between parties if they choose to resolve the matter voluntarily. The current Code, in s. 45.9, provides that a settlement of an application before the Tribunal is binding on the parties, may be incorporated into a Tribunal order on the joint motion of the parties, and may be the subject of an application for enforcement…..

The importance of final and binding settlements in the unionized workplace is articulated in the purposes of the [Labour Relations Act], which include “[t]o promote the expeditious resolution of workplace disputes”. The importance of binding agreements was articulated by the OLRB as followings in TRW Automotive (Kelsey-Hayes Canada Ltd.), [2000] OLRB Rep. July/Aug. 731 at para. 14:

Parties are entitled to rely on agreements freely entered into. Nothing would be more disruptive to orderly labour relations than to permit parties to revoke agreements among employees, their trade union, and their employer into which the parties have entered to settle disputes or potential disputes.

This is true of human rights disputes, in whatever social area they arise. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that when parties freely choose to resolve the substance of a human rights dispute, in whatever forum it is brought, the matter is at an end. This is a fundamental principle that should guide the Tribunal in the interpretation of s. 45.1, because to do otherwise could make the finality of settlements highly uncertain.

33In Kailani v. Securitas Canada, 2009 HRTO 1183, the Tribunal dismissed an application where the applicant entered into a memorandum of settlement following the filing of a grievance. At para. 37, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not under sufficient duress to cause it to look behind the plain meaning of the memorandum of settlement and that it would be an abuse of process to proceed with the application.

34In Taylor v. Hamilton (City), 2013 HRTO 1591, as cited in Baldeo v. Securitas Canada Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1453 at para. 38, the Tribunal found it would be an abuse of process to allow an application to proceed where the applicant had not agreed to a grievance settlement, but had nonetheless accepted the full benefit of the settlement.

35Based upon this, I find that the applicant’s allegations against Securitas and Mr. Blewitt have been dealt with by the grievance settlements the applicant achieved with her union. She received a financial payment and received the benefit of the settlement. It would be an abuse of process to allow the applicant to continue to proceed with any allegations arising from or related to the July 7, 2013 incident and those allegations are dismissed. Specifically, the allegations dated July 7, 2013; July 10, 2013; July 10, 2013; July 12, 2013; July 15, 2013; September 10, 2013; September 13, 2013; September 17, 2013; September 20, 2013; and October 18, 2013 are dismissed.

36The allegations that remain are dated: August 6, 2013; August 20, 2013; September 5, 2013; September 6, 2013; September 22, 2013; September [sic], 2013; December 20, 2013; December 21, 2013; December 27, 2013; May 29, 2014; August 2014; and December 12, 2014.

No Reasonable Prospect of Success

37I have determined that the remaining allegations have no reasonable prospect of success and are dismissed on that basis. Accordingly, I do not have to determine whether the allegations are timely or untimely.

August 6, 2013 Allegation

38The applicant alleges that a female co-worker made a comment about how the applicant’s pants fit, in comparison to the fitting of the other female’s pants, in the presence of a male co-worker. The male co-worker, the applicant alleges, noticed that the comment was not well received by the applicant.

39While harassment is defined under section 10 of the Code as a pattern of conduct that is vexatious, the Tribunal has recognized that in some situations, if serious enough, a single comment can be discriminatory. See Murchie v. Mongolian Grill, 2006 HRTO 33 at para. 161.

40Accepting that this allegation is true, the applicant does not provide a link or connection to the Code ground of sex, and does not provide any explanation about how this single comment, made by someone not previously mentioned or named personally in her Application, can constitute a violation of the Code. Accordingly, it has no reasonable prospect of success and is dismissed.

August 20, 2013

41The applicant alleges that she returned from a break and was told by a co-worker that Mr. Blewitt made a comment to her co-worker about the applicant “still being on break” in a rude and questioning manner. The applicant returned early from her break that day and all break times were logged and recorded.

42This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success. Again, assuming that the comment was made, there is no connection between it and the Code ground of sex.

September 5, 2013

43The applicant alleges that she reported a blocked doorway safety concern to the Cambridge site manager and master trainer. She was later told by the site manager that her comment was rude. She alleges that the safety issue was not even addressed.

44There is nothing alleged and the applicant has not pointed to any evidence that would support a finding that this allegation amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex. This allegation is dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

September 6, 2013, September 22, 2013 and September [no date specified], 2013

45Under these dates, the applicant alleges that she made her second, third and fourth requests to view her employee file (the date of her first request is not mentioned in the narrative). For the second and third request, she alleges that she did not receive a reply. For her fourth request, she writes, “Replied on…..”.

46The applicant has not pleaded or submitted anything that connects a lack of response to her request to view her employee file with the Code ground of sex. These allegations have no reasonable prospect of success and are dismissed.

December 20, 2013, December 21, 2013, and December 27, 2013

47The applicant alleges that on December 20, 2013 she received a call for “forced” overtime to be worked the next day from a “stand in manager”. She asserts that overtime is always optional. On December 21, 2013, she arrived for her shift, asked to see the email about the overtime and the manager told her that he did not know what was going on with overtime calls. On December 27, 2013, the applicant was required to attend a meeting with Mr. Blewitt and another manager during which issues about her attitude and being upset about the overtime were raised with her. She alleges that during this meeting, she was told that she is noticed because she is a woman in “blue” and if asked, people would know her and thus her actions are more closely noticed or watched. One of the managers told her that he wanted the “feisty hard working Dinah back”.

48Accepting the applicant’s allegations as true, I have difficulty seeing how the allegations from these three dates have any reasonable prospect of success.

49While the applicant is told that she is more closely watched or noticed because she is a woman, it is unclear to whom “people” refers and whether that means management, her co-workers, or persons to whom Securitas is providing services. The applicant does not identify any adverse treatment that she experienced, apart from being told that her attitude needs to improve.

50Accordingly, I find that these allegations have no reasonable prospect of success and are dismissed.

May 29, 2014

51The applicant alleges that her grievances were removed at mediation, but she did not become aware of this until she reviewed her employee file in June or July 2014, with a follow up call to the union to confirm. She alleges that the paperwork and discipline was supposed to be removed from her file, but was not.

52The applicant seems to be alleging that her union, which is not named as a respondent, did not tell her about the grievances being removed. As that allegation is against the union rather than Securitas and/or Mr. Blewitt, there is no reasonable prospect of success as against them and it is dismissed as against these respondents.

53Even if there was some link between this allegation and any of the named respondents, with respect to the paperwork and discipline not being removed from her file, the applicant has not provided any link to her sex in making this allegation. It is also dismissed on this basis as having no reasonable prospect of success.

August 2014

54The applicant alleges that she experienced direct bullying and harassment from, it appears, a female co-worker. She alleges that she raised concerns about the co-worker with management in Cambridge and requested that a formal complaint be made about the co-worker. She alleges that she saw the co-worker go into the manager’s office after her meeting, and come out a few minutes later. She alleges that Securitas and Mr. Blewitt failed to take her complaint seriously, alleging that the co-worker is a favourite on site, but regularly receives complaints.

55The allegations from August 2014 are dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant provided no information about the “bullying and harassment” she received from the co-worker, and while she challenges whether an investigation was conducted, or if so the quality of the investigation, she has been unable to point to how this is discriminatory on the basis of sex.

December 12, 2014

56The applicant alleges that on December 12, 2014 she arrived on site after attending a doctor’s appointment and told the site manager that she needed to go on light duties. She told the manager that she was not quitting and hoped to be supported during this time. She alleges that the manager told her to quit and that quitting would be easier for her. The applicant became emotional and was concerned that she would lose her job.

57The entire premise of the Application, and the applicant’s submissions, is focussed on discrimination on the basis of sex and/or a poisoned working environment based upon sex. In fact, the focus in the Application is on the July 2013 incident. In the Application itself (as opposed to the narrative which set out specific dated allegations), the applicant does not mark off “disability” as a ground of disability, identify any disability that she may have, and does not complete any of the questions on Form 1 and 1A pertaining to disability.

58With respect to the December 12, 2014, the applicant does not establish any connection or link between this allegation and her sex. She does not explain how the conversation between she and the site manager, assuming it true, could constitute discrimination because of sex and she does not point out any additional evidence upon which she would rely to establish that this allegation could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex.

59Accordingly, this allegation is dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Totality of the Allegations

60The applicant alleged in her Application that she was subjected to a poisoned working environment on the basis of sex. Accordingly, in addition to considering each allegation separately, I have considered whether the allegations collectively could have a reasonable prospect of success that the applicant was subject to a poisoned working environment. As noted above, the allegations pertaining to the July 2013 incident and its discipline are dismissed as an abuse of process and the applicant is not pursuing the January 2015 allegations and as such I have not considered them as part of the reasonable prospect of success analysis.

61In Crêpe It Up! v. Hamilton, 2014 ONSC 6721, at para. 18, Ontario’s Divisional Court discussed the concept of poisoned working environment. It quoted from General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. Johnson, 2013 ONCA 502, at paras. 66 to 67, which stated:

… There must be evidence that, to the objective reasonable bystander, would support the conclusion that a poisoned workplace environment had been created. …

Moreover, except for particularly egregious, stand-alone incidents, a poisoned workplace is not created, as a matter of law, unless serious wrongful behaviour sufficient to create a hostile or intolerable work environment is persistent or repeated.

62In reviewing these allegations as a whole, which arise from different work sites and with different people, the applicant has not been able to establish that there is a link to the alleged behaviours and the Code ground of sex.

63Even assuming that the treatment and conduct may amount to unfairness, the Tribunal has stated on many times that it does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant can show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389.

Conclusion

64After considering the above, I have determined that:

• There is no reasonable prospect of success as against Toyota and Mr. Dahmer;
• It would be an abuse of process to permit the applicant to proceed with her allegations pertaining to the July 2013 incident, subsequent grievances and resolution of those grievances; and
• The remaining allegations against Securitas and Mr. Blewitt are dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

65The Application is dismissed in its entirety.