Chisholm v. York Catholic District School Board, 2016 HRTO 752

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patrice Chisholm

Applicant

-and-

York Catholic District School Board and Casey Cabral

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: June 1, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 752

Indexed as: Chisholm v. York Catholic District School Board

APPEARANCES

Patrice Chisholm, Applicant

Self-represented

York Catholic District School Board and Casey Cabral, Respondents

Dianne Jozefacki, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant, Patrice Chisholm, was a student teacher placed with the York Catholic District School Board in September 2014. Her placement ended abruptly after a confrontation with her supervising teacher two weeks into the placement. She alleges that she experienced discrimination throughout her placement. The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The applicant self-identifies alternatively as African Canadian or of Jamaican descent.

2The applicant named two individual respondents in her Application: Casey Cabral, the teacher in whose class she was placed, and Luisa Busato, the principal of the school. The respondents brought a request that I remove both personal respondents. At the outset of the hearing, I issued an oral ruling removing Luisa Busato as a party as there were no allegations of discrimination against her. I declined to remove Casey Cabral (“Cabral”) as a respondent as her interactions with the applicant were central to the allegations in the Application.

3For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant has failed to establish discrimination with respect to employment or, alternatively, services on the basis of any ground under the Code.

Evidence

Background

4The applicant was enrolled in the teacher program at Medaille College (“Medaille”), an American College with campuses in New York State. She lives in the Greater Toronto Area and attended the program at the Buffalo campus. In the second year of her program she was required to do a student placement with a “host” teacher.

5The York Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) had previously hosted students from Medaille and agreed to host the applicant. Specifically, Cabral agreed to host a student teacher in her grade three classroom at Divine Mercy Catholic School (“Divine Mercy”), and the applicant was assigned to her. She received a small stipend from Medaille for agreeing to be the applicant’s “associate teacher” (a term used by Medaille to describe the placement or supervising teacher).

The Applicant’s Placement

6The applicant was scheduled to start her placement on Tuesday, September 2, 2014, the day after Labour Day and the first day of school. Her placement was to have gone until Friday, October 17, 2014. However, the applicant’s placement was shifted, with her new start day being Monday, September 8, 2014 (with an end date of October 24, 2014), when illness caused her to miss the first week of school.

Attendance Issues

7There were difficulties with this placement from its outset. On July 21, 2014, Medaille wrote to the principal and associate teacher advising them of the identity and contact information for the applicant and her supervisor from Medaille (“Medaille supervisor” or “supervisor”). The letters went on to state that the associate teacher should receive “an introductory email or phone call” from the applicant in the “near future.” Cabral, however, did not hear from the applicant.

8Cabral emailed the applicant on August 29, 2014 to welcome her and ask her to meet her at 8:30 a.m. on September 2, 2014. Although the applicant testified that she tried to arrange a meeting the week before school started, it is clear that the applicant did not respond to Cabral’s email or otherwise try to communicate with her prior to the start of school.

9Moreover, the applicant did not contact Cabral to say that she would not be able to attend on the first day of her placement because she was sick. She did contact her Medaille supervisor at 8:00 a.m. that day, and said she would contact Cabral by email, having unsuccessfully tried to phone the school. The applicant does not dispute that no email was sent. The applicant’s Medaille supervisor wrote an email to Cabral midday to advise her that the applicant was not well and would be seeing her doctor. In her response email to the supervisor, Cabral expressed her surprise that the applicant had simply not shown up that morning.

10The applicant did not attend on Wednesday, September 3, 2014, and only emailed Cabral at 5:00 p.m. that day. This email did not advise whether she would be attending her placement the following day, so her Medaille supervisor followed up with the applicant, and was eventually advised that her doctor had recommended the applicant be off the remainder of the week. The Medaille supervisor communicated this to Cabral.

11The applicant did attend the following week (September 8-12, 2014), but was late every day. The expectation was that she attend at 8:30 a.m., for an 8:50 start of school. Instead, she arrived at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, and 9:20 a.m. on Thursday and Friday.

12Cabral talked to the applicant about her lateness, which she found disruptive, and the applicant advised her that she had to take four busses to get to Divine Mercy from her home. Compounding this problem was the fact that she was the sole parent to her then 8-year old daughter, whom she had to get to care before going to school. The applicant testified that she had to get her daughter up at 5:00 a.m. in order to get to her placement on time.

13Cabral testified that she was both irritated by the applicant’s lateness, but also sympathetic about the commute faced by the applicant. She wrote to the applicant’s supervisor to alert Medaille about the problem, and letting her know about the difficulties experienced by the applicant in the hope that they could find a placement closer to the applicant’s home. The Medaille supervisor wrote back and said that it was incumbent on the applicant to make arrangements to arrive on time. The following week (September 15-19, 2014) the applicant arrived more or less on time.

14The applicant took the position at the hearing that her lateness was not problematic; that she could make up her hours by attending events outside of school hours or extending her placement.

Assignment of Tasks

15Medaille’s Student Teaching Handbook advises that in Week 1 of their placement student teachers are to observe and assist, and in Week 2 they are to, among other things, “begin to write and teach lessons.” The applicant felt that during the first week, she was assigned demeaning tasks like cutting and pasting for a bulletin board entitled “spectacular summer snaps” and photocopying. Cabral testified that the applicant volunteered to assist with the bulletin board, and that she would not have assigned the applicant to do photocopying as she has a password for the photocopier, which she did not share with the applicant.

16In any event, it would appear that Cabral had concerns about the applicant’s level of knowledge, in addition to her concerns about the applicant’s punctuality and failure to communicate her absences. In an email to the applicant’s supervisor, written Monday, September 15, 2014, Cabral writes: “I find that she has a lot to work on and sometimes our conversations about education are very basic but she does need to learn from experience.”

17The applicant testified that she had to ask Cabral about teaching a lesson on the Friday of the first week. Because Cabral seemed upset about this disruption, saying she had already prepared all her lesson plans, the applicant said she had to point to the requirements in the Student Teaching Handbook. She said that Cabral approached her on Monday, September 15, 2014 and told her she could teach a language unit on Friday of that week.

18The applicant testified that while she was typing in the classroom the second week of her placement she overheard Cabral making the following complaint to another teacher: “I already have my lessons planned; I just don’t want another person to do this.” Cabral denies she was reluctant to assign a lesson to the applicant or that she made this comment to anyone.

19It is common ground between the parties that Cabral assigned the applicant to teach a language lesson as part of the “wiggly worms” unit, the morning of Friday, September 19, 2014. This pivotal event is discussed in greater detail below.

Exclusion from Activities

20As a student teacher, the applicant expected to be brought into all activities of the classroom. On September 18, 2014, the applicant participated in an assembly and practice on school bus safety. She testified that when she returned from this to the classroom, Cabral was having a meeting, to which she had not been invited, with the two other grade-three teachers. Cabral agreed that she had a weekly, informal meeting with these two teachers to discuss where they were respectively in the curriculum. She had not thought to invite the applicant to this meeting because it was over the lunch hour.

21On Thursday evening of the second week of her placement, the school hosted a curriculum night (an event in which the teachers met with the parents of their students to go over what they were planning to teach in the upcoming year). The applicant testified that Cabral discouraged her from coming, and when she showed up, told her she “was crazy” for having made the effort to attend. Cabral agrees that she told the applicant she did not need to attend, given the applicant’s lengthy commute and childcare responsibilities. She also agreed that she told the applicant she was “crazy” for having made the effort to come, although otherwise was not concerned about the applicant’s attendance at this event.

The Final Incident

22As noted above, the applicant was told she would be teaching the language lesson associated with the “wiggly worms” unit on Friday, September 19, 2015, which was the end of the applicant’s second week at Divine Mercy. The applicant testified that on Tuesday, September 16, Cabral told her she wanted the applicant to do the lesson on Wednesday. The applicant felt this was unfair because she was supposed to have 48 hours to prepare the lesson plan and was concerned about why Cabral would be pushing up the delivery of the lesson.

23Cabral disagreed with this assertion, but testified that it was her expectation that the applicant would have had a fully completed and typed lesson plan to her by Wednesday, two days before the applicant was to have taught her lesson. Instead, she testified, when she asked for it, the applicant handed her an incomplete, hand-written lesson plan, which was difficult to follow. The applicant said she had not been able to type it because her personal computer was broken.

24The applicant asked for and was given time in the library to type it up. She also testified that the Educational Intervenor (“EI”), Lorraine Griffiths, typed in her password, which allowed the applicant to use the computer in the classroom. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the applicant did not provide a modified, typed lesson plan to Cabral. She testified that there were problems with sending print jobs from the computers in the classroom to the printers in the library, but did not explain why she was not able to print from the library computers, which she also used. She did not advise Cabral of this problem or otherwise seek her assistance.

25Cabral testified that she expected to see a typed lesson plan on her desk on the morning the applicant taught the lesson and was surprised when there was nothing there. She said she had discussed with the applicant that in the 45 minutes allotted to this lesson, the applicant should meet with the class as a whole, and then break into smaller groups to complete activities, before bringing the group back together for a wrap-up. Instead, the applicant spent the entire 45 minutes in the whole group.

26The applicant’s lesson commenced immediately after the morning announcements. At 10:00 a.m. Cabral interrupted the lesson because the class had to retrieve and eat their snack before going out for recess at 10:10. Cabral testified there was no flexibility about this because the students were going directly to gym class after recess. There is some disagreement between the versions of events provided by the applicant and Cabral, but they both agree that a confrontation ensued after the students left for recess.

27The applicant testified that at 10:00, Cabral yelled at her, “What are you doing? Stop!” She said she approached Cabral and asked what she did wrong, and Cabral answered that she had gone over her time. She told Cabral that she had been watching the time, and had already wrapped up, when she was told to stop. She also said that she had asked the EI to monitor the time for her, but was told by Cabral that the EI was not supposed to be doing this.

28The applicant testified that she then said to Cabral, “I don’t feel comfortable in here; I don’t think you want me to do well in the class.” Cabral demanded to know what she meant by that, and she told her about the overheard conversation with the other teacher while she was preparing for this lesson. Cabral then told her to wait, while she brought the other teacher in, who confirmed that Cabral had not said what the applicant believed she had said. At that point, Cabral then said to her “I can’t handle this anymore – I’ve been trying to be compassionate to you,” before storming out of the classroom.

29The applicant said she wanted to leave the classroom, but did not feel she could go until told to do so. Eventually, Cabral came back, giving the applicant a “dirty look.” Shortly after that the principal came and asked the applicant to come with her to the office.

30In contrast, Cabral testified that she did not yell, but stopped the lesson by saying “Sorry to interrupt. Boys and girls quietly go and get your knapsacks and bring back your snacks.” She testified that she thought the applicant was shocked because she had to stop the lesson. Afterward, the applicant came over to debrief. She did talk to the applicant about her timing, saying it was often an issue for beginning teachers.

31At this point, Cabral testified, the applicant said to her, “you should have monitored my time” and “you set me up for failure.” She then brought up that Cabral had been in touch with the applicant’s student advisor from Medaille about the applicant being late, and accused her of trying to push her out. Cabral testified that she said to the applicant, “I thought you wanted to be closer to home,” to which the applicant testified, “you’re saying that, but you don’t mean it.”

32Around 10:15 a.m., Cabral said she no longer felt comfortable with the direction of the meeting and asked the applicant to leave because the placement was over. She testified that the applicant refused to leave so she went to speak to the principal about this. The principal was in the classroom with the applicant when Cabral returned with her union representative. She denied giving the applicant a dirty look.

33The principal met with the applicant in her office. She testified that she asked about the lesson plan, and the applicant showed her the hand-written draft she had provided to Cabral on the prior Wednesday. She told the applicant that she should have listened to Cabral’s feedback as Cabral was an excellent teacher. While the applicant was in her office, the principal testified that she typed up an email to the applicant’s faculty coordinator at Medaille, which she then read to the applicant. She advised the applicant that the placement was terminated and that the applicant would have to leave. She walked her to the door.

34The applicant testified that she could not remember the principal typing the email or reading it to her. She said she suffers from high blood pressure and was dizzy in the principal’s office. She recalls being offered a bottle of water.

Cabral’s Relationship with the Educational Intervenor (EI)

35One of the students in Cabral’s classroom had an EI assigned to him to deal with his behavioural issues. The applicant called this EI as a witness to testify about her negative relationship with Cabral over the management of this student. She testified that she had not worked with Cabral until September 2014 (i.e., she started in the same month as the applicant), when the student she was responsible for was placed in Cabral’s class. The EI’s concerns were largely with Cabral raising her voice and triggering this student’s behaviour. The EI testified that when Cabral would not accept what the EI was telling her, she took her concerns to the principal. It is not necessary to make findings on this evidence, as it is not the factual dispute between the parties to this Application.

Overheard Staffroom Conversation

36This EI testified that she was in the washroom inside the staffroom and overheard Cabral comment on the applicant being late because she lived a long way away, and had travel/time issues. She testified she heard Cabral say she did not think the relationship would work out. She then overheard an Educational Assistant (“EA”) by the name of Delores say to Cabral “Oh, you have two of them in the classroom,” to which Cabral responded “Yeah, I know, it’s really stressful.” The EI testified that she assumed that the use of the word “them” referred to Black people as both she and the applicant are Black.

37The applicant testified that on September 17, 2014, she was in the staff washroom, she overheard Delores say to Cabral “Of all the problems you have, and now you have another black person such as Lorraine Griffiths [the EI].”

38Cabral denies this conversation took place. She said that she does not discuss the personal details of people she works with to other staff members.

Subsequent Complaint to Director of Education

39On September 26, 2014, the applicant wrote a letter to the Director of Education for the respondent Board, Patricia Preston, to complain about her treatment and the termination of her placement. She referred to the negative experiences of the EI (without mentioning her race), as well as her own, in this letter and states in the concluding paragraph that she has spoken to a “legal representative” who had advised her that she had a case of discrimination. There is no reference to the conversation the applicant alleged she overheard between the EA and Cabral in the staffroom. She does, however, assert in this letter that she overheard Cabral talk about the surgery the EI was having, and the reasons for it, to another staff member.

Analysis and findings

Was the Applicant in an Employment or Service Relationship with the Respondents?

40At the outset of the hearing, the respondents asked to have this Application dismissed on the basis that the applicant’s relationship with them was not “with respect to employment.” I declined to do so at that time because it would appear that the applicant was in a service relationship, if not an employment relationship, with the respondents.

41The evidence showed that the applicant’s teaching program was comprised of coursework and a placement component. The placement was not analogous to an unpaid internship, but rather is described in the Student Handbook as “the culmination of [the student’s] educational preparation process.” She paid a small stipend to the placement teacher, via Medaille, to supervise and guide her, and did not receive any payment for her services. Student placements did not lead to employment with the placement institution/Board.

42I am satisfied that the allegations raised in the Application are with respect to the social area of “services,” although not “with respect to employment.” As an unrepresented party, it is not surprising that the applicant did not appreciate the nuanced difference between these terms. Importantly, the respondents had notice of the substance of her allegations from the outset. The fact that the applicant did not select “services” when she filed her Application is not a basis for dismissing it.

Was Ethnic Origin a Factor in the Applicant’s Treatment?

43The applicant bears the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that she experienced differential treatment, based on her ethnic origin. The applicant alleges she was subjected to demeaning gestures such as eye-rolling, excluded from fully participating in the activities of a student teacher, yelled at and set up to fail by the personal respondent. She alleges that the fact that she is an African Canadian was a factor in the way she was treated during, and in the termination of, her placement.

Credibility

44This is a case in which I must evaluate the reliability and credibility of the witnesses’ respective testimony. In evaluating their testimony, I have relied on the following propositions:

1. “When one is concerned with a witness's veracity, one speaks of the witness's credibility. When one is concerned with the accuracy of a witness's testimony, one speaks of the reliability of that testimony.” Reliability is influenced by a witness’s ability to “accurately observe, recall and recount” events. Credibility goes to the propensity to tell the truth or the “sincerity” of the witness. See R. v. Morrissey (1995), 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), 97 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (ON C.A.) at p.205

2. Credibility can be determined by evaluating whether the story provided by the witness is consistent with the “preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions:” see Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.)

3. In evaluating the credibility or reliability of evidence, one looks to a number of interrelated factors such as its probability, logical connection with other findings and support from independent evidence. In evaluating the credibility of a witness, one looks to such factors as the ability to “perceive and recall,” level of candour (or evasiveness) and “attitude towards the parties.” See Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2011 HRTO 1230 at para. 54

4. “A finding of lack of credibility or reliability with respect to one aspect of a witness’s testimony does not automatically render the entirety of the witness’s evidence as incredible or unreliable.” See Visic, supra.

45The testimony of Cabral, the principal and the EI was delivered in a unembellished manner, was consistent with the independent evidence and seemed inherently probable. While the testimony of these witnesses seemed both credible and reliable, I had grave concerns about the reliability of the applicant’s testimony. As discussed further, her testimony was internally inconsistent, inconsistent with her earlier written version of events supplied to the Tribunal and prone to exaggeration.

46Where there is a conflict between the applicant’s testimony and that of the other witnesses, I prefer the testimony of the latter.

Analysis of the evidence

47The applicant bears the onus of establishing discrimination on the balance of probabilities based on clear and cogent evidence. The applicant belongs to a protected group. She also experienced adverse treatment when her placement was terminated. However, proving discrimination requires something more than merely establishing that the applicant belongs to a group protected by the Code and that she experienced problems. The applicant must establish that her membership in the protected group (i.e., her ethnic origin) was a factor in this adverse treatment. See Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 at para. 59.

48As I understand the applicant, her argument that her ethnic origin was a factor is threefold: First, the treatment of her was unfair and unwarranted; second, Cabral treated the other black employee in her classroom poorly; and third, Cabral agreed with another employee who commiserated with her in the staffroom about having two black employees (one of which was the applicant) adding to Cabral’s problems.

49With respect to the overheard staff comment, I cannot accept the applicant’s version of this conversation. It is not possible for the applicant and the EI to both have overheard this conversation from the washroom in the staffroom since it is a single-use washroom. In any event, the EI did not testify the applicant was with her when this remark was made; likewise, the applicant did not testify that the EI was with her when she overheard the remark.

50It is highly improbable that the remark was made twice – once in the applicant’s presence and once in the EI’s presence. Moreover, the applicant did not allege that she overheard anything of this nature in her letter of complaint to the Director of Education (a week after the fact), although she does complain about overhearing Cabral recount inappropriate personal details about the EI’s upcoming surgery. She also alludes to the fact that she considers her treatment to be discriminatory. This would be the time to raise something as important as this alleged conversation.

51In her Application, the applicant states that it was the EI who heard this conversation (not her), but in her Reply states it was her who heard it. It would appear that at some point prior to filing her Application the applicant learned of this overheard conversation from the EI and over time incorporated it into her own narrative of events.

52With respect to the EI’s version of events, she presented this in a straightforward manner and I have no reason to doubt her credibility. Having said that, I have no reason to doubt Cabral’s credibility, and she testified that she did not participate in a conversation such as this. It is possible that the EI misheard through the doors of the washroom a conversation in which she was not taking part. It is also possible that it took place and was not of sufficient significance that Cabral remembered it.

53In any event, the EI testified that she assumed that when the EA was speaking to Cabral about “two of them” that she was referring to the fact that both she and the applicant are black. In fact, this EA could have been referring about two persons who were causing Cabral grief. Indeed, the two persons might not have been the applicant and the EI, but two students or two parents. In the absence of context, it is difficult to attribute much meaning to this.

54Similarly, the mere fact that the EI was having difficulties with Cabral is insufficient for me to find that Cabral had difficulty working with persons of colour or persons who share the applicant’s ethnic background. The EI did not say that she attributed her problems with Cabral to the fact that she was black or her ethnic origin (which she did not disclose); rather her testimony focussed on their deep difference of opinion about how best to deal with the exceptional student for which the EI was responsible. This was not the dispute before me, and I make no comment on it, other than it does not help me infer anything about the applicant’s experience with Cabral.

55I would note, parenthetically, that Cabral testified that she had never had a problem with her student placements in the past. The applicant asked Cabral in cross-examination if any of these student teachers had been black, to which Cabral answered yes.

56The final strand of the applicant’s argument is that I can infer from the very bad treatment she received at the hands of Cabral that her race must have been a factor. However, the applicant has failed to establish that she was, in fact, badly treated. The applicant suggested that Cabral frequently rolled her eyes and yelled at the applicant, but her testimony was lacking in specifics other than what occurred in the final confrontation. The EI, who was frequently in the classroom with them, did not testify about this, although she did suggest that Cabral raised her voice when dealing with the exceptional student.

57The applicant said she was given demeaning tasks to do, but the only example of this she could recount was the cutting out of pictures for the display board. Without knowing more, it would seem to me that activities such as this are part of the more mundane duties even a fully-qualified teacher would undertake. Moreover, the student handbook from Medaille makes it clear that the first week was to be largely devoted to observation. The applicant’s journal from this period shows that she was observing and also that Cabral was taking the time with her over this week (as well as the next) to explain her educational strategies.

58The applicant testified that she was only reluctantly given a teaching assignment by Cabral in her second week, that Cabral failed to give her the necessary support, and that Cabral did not expect any lesson plan beyond that which she provided to Cabral.

59I am satisfied on the evidence that Cabral expected her to complete a proper, coherent and type-written lesson plan two days in advance of the actual lesson. Although the applicant at times during her evidence argued that this was not necessary or expected, she did also acknowledge that the only reason a typewritten plan was not handed in to Cabral was because her laptop was broken. She also acknowledged making efforts to type it out on the school computers.

60The evidence does not support the applicant’s contention that Cabral “set her up to fail.” I accept Cabral’s testimony that she advised the applicant where to find the necessary background information for the lesson plan, that she met with the applicant two days later to go over the draft plan and she gave the applicant time during the day to use the computers in the library to type up the plan.

61The fact that the applicant’s lesson went on too long was not, itself, problematic, but the applicant’s response to this critique was. Instead of acknowledging that she had failed to keep track of the time, which would have allowed her to have a conversation about how better to do this the next time, I accept she lashed out at Cabral.

62I do not accept the applicant’s contention that Cabral was actively working to undermine her during her time at Divine Mercy. The fact that Cabral did not invite the applicant to attend an informal meeting held during the lunch hour on September 18, 2014 would not have jeopardized the applicant’s placement with Medaille, as the applicant suggested in her evidence.

63Likewise, I accept Cabral’s testimony that her advising the applicant she need not attend the curriculum night the evening of September 18, 2014 was not an attempt to exclude the applicant (or get her in trouble with Medaille), but was a recognition of the extraordinary commute the applicant faced, as well as the fact that she was a single-mother of an eight-year old child.

64At the same time that the applicant expressed the view that it was critical for her to be at all these events (and that Cabral knew that failure to attend them could jeopardize her placement), she also expressed the contradictory view that her lateness was not inherently problematic since she could always make up the missed time in some other ways, including attending after-hour events such as the curriculum night.

65I do not accept the applicant’s contention that Cabral’s attempts to speak with her Medaille supervisor about getting a placement closer to her home was evidence that Cabral was trying to get rid of her because of her ethnic origin. I accept Cabral’s evidence that she spoke to the supervisor out of concern for the applicant. It is also possible that she spoke to the supervisor about the placement because she had some concerns about the applicant’s reliability. She did acknowledge that the applicant’s lateness and failure to communicate her absences were disruptive to her routine and a source of irritation.

66The evidence establishes that the applicant correctly perceived that there were strains in her relationship with Cabral prior to the final incident. However, I do not find that the applicant correctly perceived the source of this strain. The applicant failed to acknowledge, or was unable to see, her role in the deteriorating relationship and incorrectly attributed it to her ethnic background.

67In the final analysis, there is no reliable evidence from which I can infer that the applicant’s ethnic origin was a factor in the way she was treated during the relevant time frame. The applicant has, therefore, failed to establish discrimination in services and/or employment on a balance of probabilities on the basis of any enumerated ground under the Code.

order

68The Application is dismissed.