HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Farah Mozafarian Applicant
-and-
Saint Elizabeth Health Care Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Mozafarian v. Saint Elizabeth Health Care
APPEARANCES
Farah Mozafarian, Applicant
Self-represented
Saint Elizabeth Health Care, Respondent
Andre Nowakowski, Counsel
1This is an Application filed June 4, 2014 alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The respondent is a not-for-profit organization that delivers health care in people’s homes and communities. The respondent provides in-home nursing, rehabilitation, and personal support services to clients on a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week basis. The large majority of the respondent’s clients are referred through the Community Care Access Centre (“CCAC”). The CCAC determines the level of care and duration and frequency of services to each client.
3The applicant was hired by the respondent initially as a part-time Registered Practical Nurse (“RPN”) in May 2007. Her employment status changed to guaranteed hours effective May 16, 2009. The applicant was one of several RPNs on a team with Registered Nurses (“RN”s). As set out in detail below, the applicant’s employment with the respondent was terminated effective March 17, 2014.
4By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated August 12, 2015, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that: (1) some or all of the allegations may be untimely; and/or (2) there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed. In addition, it was also directed that the preliminary hearing would address the respondents’ request to remove the individual respondents.
5An in-person preliminary hearing was held before me on January 20, 2016, at which I heard the parties’ oral submissions on these issues. I also have considered the documents submitted by the parties for the purpose of the preliminary hearing.
6In this Decision, I will first consider the alleged incidents of discrimination which occurred in the one year period preceding the filing of the Application, and assess whether any of these allegations have a reasonable prospect of success. With regard to the alleged incidents of discrimination which occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the Application, I will next consider whether these allegations should be dismissed for delay. Finally, I will consider the respondents’ request for removal of the personal respondents.
Do any of the timely allegations have a reasonable prospect of success?
7The one year period preceding the filing of the Application extends back to June 4, 2013. As a result, I will first consider the allegations raised in the Application which are alleged to have occurred on or after June 4, 2013, and assess whether any of these allegations have a reasonable prospect of success.
8The first matter raised in this Application which post-dates June 4, 2013 relates to the applicant’s performance appraisal. The applicant submitted her self-evaluation on June 28, 2013 using an outdated form, and as a result there were some problems with the interim supervisor’s ability to input his own comments into the form. While I appreciate that the applicant may have experienced some frustration in relation to having to re-submit her self-evaluation on the new form and the delay this caused in having her performance appraisal meeting, there is nothing in this incident that engages any of the applicant’s rights under the Code. I appreciate that the applicant views her performance appraisal as an opportunity to raise issues and concerns regarding her supervisor (C.G.), whom the applicant alleges was subjecting her to discriminatory treatment, but these issues and concerns relate to events which pre-dated June 4, 2013, and the mere repetition of these issues and concerns in the performance appraisal does not serve to move these alleged incidents into the one year period.
9The next matter raised in the Application relates to information the applicant received from certain clients that they had been contacted about her. There is no dispute that the Regional Director (L.C.) contacted one of the applicant’s clients in April 2013 regarding positive feedback that had been received from this client about the applicant, to see if the client would be willing to participate in a promotional video. The applicant alleges that at a meeting in September 2013, L.C. denied having contacted the applicant’s clients. This is disputed by the respondent. In any event, I fail to see how L.C. contacting this client based on positive feedback about the applicant in order to see if the client would be willing to participate in a promotional video can amount to an act of discrimination against the applicant. At the preliminary hearing, the applicant expressed her belief that this was a ruse, and that L.C. was actually looking for an opportunity to come to this client’s home in order to try to find negative things about the applicant. In my view, this is pure speculation unsupported by any actual evidence.
10The Application also makes reference to three other clients who the applicant says were contacted by L.C. This is denied by the respondent. The respondent acknowledges that it uses a third party to randomly select clients and conduct telephone surveys as a matter of quality control. At the preliminary hearing, I asked the applicant what evidence she would call at a hearing to establish that L.C., and not the third party surveyor engaged by the respondent, called these clients. She stated that these clients told her that they were called by “the office”, which the applicant believes referred to the respondent and not the third party surveyor. She also told me that at a meeting, L.C. first denied that she had contacted these clients, but later admitted that she had done so. This is disputed by the respondent. The applicant was also clear at the preliminary hearing that she did not intend to call any of these clients to testify as witnesses at any hearing. In my view, in the absence of such witness testimony and the ability of these clients to positively identify who contacted them, the applicant has no reasonable prospect of establishing that L.C. was the person who contacted these clients. In my view, there is nothing inappropriate in the respondent engaging a third party to conduct random client surveys, and the applicant has no reasonable prospect of establishing at a hearing that the respondent was doing anything other than this.
11The next issue raised in the Application relates to a request made on July 29, 2013 for the applicant to attend a meeting with the Regional Director (L.C.) and the interim supervisor. As the applicant was about to leave on vacation, she requested that the meeting take place after she returned. This was agreed to. I see nothing in this that gives rise to any alleged violation of the Code.
12The next issue raised in the Application relates to an incident that occurred on July 30, 2013, where the applicant had submitted some supply orders for certain clients that were not forwarded to the pharmacy. The applicant was initially told that these supply orders had not been received in the respondent’s office, but the orders were eventually found in a file of completed orders. In response to my question at the preliminary hearing as to how this incident gives rise to an alleged violation of her rights under the Code, the applicant stated that her allegation is that someone at the respondent organization was deliberately sabotaging the applicant’s ability to care for her clients and that this was being directed by the Regional Director so that she could get negative reviews about the applicant and have justification to terminate her employment. In my view, this allegation is both far-fetched and entirely speculative. If the respondent wanted to terminate the applicant's employment, it could have done so at any time without cause simply by providing her with pay in lieu of reasonable notice, as it ultimately did in March 2014. There is no reasonable basis to support any alleged conspiracy by the Regional Director arising from the misfiling of some supply orders.
13On August 2, 2013, the applicant attempted to contact the C.E.O. of the respondent organization to complain about the alleged harassment and bullying that she says she was experiencing. She was then contacted by the respondent’s Vice-President, Human Resources in response, and ultimately spoke with a Human Resources Manager (F.L.) on August 6, 2013. The applicant states that she spoke with F.L. on the phone for about an hour, and shared everything about how she believed that she was experiencing discrimination because of her creed and place of origin. The applicant then went on vacation from August 6 to 19, 2013.
14Following her return from vacation, the applicant alleges that on August 27, 2013, her messages were blocked on her Blackberry, so that she was unable to communicate with the respondent organization. The applicant alleges that at a later meeting, L.C. first stated that the applicant had been blocked by the pharmacy but then later acknowledged that she (L.C.) had blocked the applicant due to problems with the system. This is denied by the respondent. Once again, this is alleged by the applicant to be part of a conspiracy directed by L.C. to prevent her from providing proper care to her clients. As stated above, in my view, this allegation has no greater prospect of success than the previous conspiracy allegation, as the applicant has no evidence or did not point to any evidence reasonably available to her that can establish the necessary link to the grounds alleged in her Application.
15The next allegation raised in the Application relates to a meeting attended by the applicant on September 5, 2015 with the Human Resources Manager (F.L.), the Regional Director (L.C.) and the interim supervisor. The applicant alleges that F.L. shouted at her for a good part of this meeting, saying that the applicant should not have contacted the C.E.O., that people are not bullied at the respondent organization, and that the applicant has a behaviour problem. The respondent disputes this allegation. In fact, this allegation formed part of an internal complaint made by the applicant which was investigated by the respondent, and all other meeting attendees deny that F.L. shouted at the applicant during this meeting.
16Nonetheless, even if F.L. did raise her voice to the applicant at this meeting, the mere fact of raising one’s voice, or even shouting or yelling, at a meeting is not in and of itself a violation of the Code. The applicant needs to be able to point to some basis for connecting this alleged behaviour to a ground protected under the Code. When asked at the preliminary hearing to identify the basis upon which she is making this connection, the applicant referenced herself as a Muslim woman from Iran who held an entry-level position in the respondent organization, and alleged that due to this status, F.L. felt that it was okay to mistreat the applicant. The applicant also expressed her belief that F.L. would not have done this to other people in the respondent organization who are Christian. This allegation, along with many of the applicant’s other allegations, essentially boils down to saying that the applicant is a member of a protected group who alleges that she had a negative experience, and therefore the negative experience must be based on her personal characteristics. As will be discussed below, this in my view is what the Tribunal’s caselaw refers to as a “bare allegation” and is entirely speculative in the absence of other supporting evidence, and as a result has no reasonable prospect of success.
17There is no question that an issue was raised at the September 5, 2013 meeting about the applicant having contacted the C.E.O. In a memo dated September 12, 2013 from F.L. to the applicant recapping what was discussed, F.L. makes express reference to there being appropriate channels for the applicant to reach out to when she feels that she is not receiving the support that she requires from her supervisor. It is also clear from this memo that certain issues were addressed at the September 5, 2013 meeting that were critical of the applicant, including the performance appraisal process, the ordering of supplies, and the organization’s expectation that the applicant attend meetings with management when requested to do so. In my view, there is nothing in the raising of these issues with the applicant at the September 5, 2013 meeting that gives rise to any alleged violation of her rights under the Code.
18The September 5, 2013 memo also addressed the issues the applicant had raised with F.L. in early August 2013. F.L. records in the memo that the applicant was told that the organization was not going to deal with issues from two years ago, but expressed a willingness to address the applicant’s priority concerns from the preceding year. F.L. requested a response from the applicant by September 17, 2013.
19The applicant replied on September 17, 2013 to express her disagreement with how F.L. had characterized the issues discussed at the September 5, 2013 meeting and to raise her allegation that F.L. had shouted at her for most of the meeting. The applicant also stated that all of the issues she had raised in early August 2013 remained a serious concern for her and did not disappear because of a deadline that F.L. had imposed. The applicant requested access to her employee file, which was subsequently granted, and a copy of the respondent’s policy on harassment and violence in the workplace, which was provided to her. The applicant states in her September 17, 2013 memo that she intended to file a formal complaint under this policy.
20In her September 17, 2013 memo, the applicant also states: “I also believe that I have been unfairly treated because of my accent since many in the organization believe it is okay to make fun of me and that my human rights have been violated”. The memo does not provide any specifics regarding who is alleged to have made fun of the applicant’s accent or when or in what context. The Application as filed with this Tribunal is accompanied by a 14 page single-spaced narrative setting out the applicant’s allegations. In the entirety of this document, only one reference is made by the applicant to anyone making fun of her accent. The applicant alleges that at a meeting sometime after June 2012, her then supervisor (C.G.) made fun of her accent while the applicant was speaking.
21When asked about this at the preliminary hearing, the applicant stated that the 14 page document appended to her Application did not cover everything that she went through, and that there were other instances where supervisors and nurses made fun of her accent. She stated that the focus in her Application was on management, so she only made reference to C.G. having made fun of her accent. The applicant went on to say that C.G. had made fun of her accent at a meeting in March 2013. While it is clear from the Application that certain allegations are raised by the applicant regarding alleged comments made by C.G. at a meeting in March 2013, no allegation is raised that C.G. made fun of her accent at the March 2013 meeting. While no date is provided in the Application as to when the meeting occurred at which the applicant alleges that C.G. made fun of her accent, it is clear that this meeting occurred prior to March 2013 and sometime in proximity to a performance appraisal completed by C.G. in June 2012. At the preliminary hearing, the applicant stated that she believed that this meeting probably occurred in the summer of 2012.
22The applicant further stated at the preliminary hearing that, at a meeting with the respondent organization’s Human Resources Leader (M.T.) on October 21, 2013, she specifically raised the allegation that C.G. had made fun of her accent. I find this hard to accept. First, no such statement is made in the Application. Second, M.T. conducted an investigation into the applicant’s allegations as raised on October 21, 2013, and reported back to the applicant in a letter dated November 12, 2013. While the November 12, 2013 letter addresses a number of allegations made by the applicant against C.G., nowhere in this document is any reference made to the applicant having alleged that C.G. made fun of her accent. Third, since receiving the November 21, 2013 letter, the applicant could point to no occasion on which she had expressed to M.T. or anyone else that M.T. had missed such a significant allegation against C.G. as that C.G. had made fun of the applicant’s accent.
23At the preliminary hearing, the applicant further elaborated upon her allegations against C.G. She stated that, at the meeting where C.G. is alleged to have made fun of the applicant’s accent, C.G. also said to the applicant “what, with your broken English”. The applicant then stated that C.G. also had said this to her during their discussion of her 2012 performance appraisal. There is no allegation raised in the Application that C.G. made any such comments. The applicant states that she recalled this as she was going through events during the course of the preliminary hearing. Once again, I find this hard to accept.
24Even at the preliminary hearing, the applicant was unable to provide any other specific examples of people in the respondent organization having made fun of her accent. She stated generally that the nurses made fun of her accent at meetings any time she spoke, but that she could not identify any particular meetings or dates. No such allegation is raised in the Application.
25The Application next raises an issue from September 25, 2013, when the applicant’s supervisor (C.G.) sent the applicant an e-mail asking her to call C.G. When the applicant did so, the applicant says that C.G. said that she had not sent in a particular form for a client. The applicant said she had done so. Shortly thereafter, C.G. located the form and confirmed this by e-mail to the applicant. I fail to see anything here that supports an alleged violation of the Code.
26The applicant next raises an issue about a visit C.G. made to the home of one of her clients, which the applicant says is unusual. The applicant filed the e-mail exchange with C.G. over this client. In September 2013, the CCAC Case Manager had requested that the applicant teach this client how to self-inject the client’s medication and then discharge the client. The applicant felt that the client required ongoing service until December. As a result, the CCAC Case Manager contacted C.G. and asked her to visit the client, which C.G. did. C.G. confirmed that she had done so in an e-mail to the applicant dated September 27, 2013 and stated that the last visit for this client would be October 1, 2013. C.G. then sent an e-mail to the applicant on October 2, 2013 asking her to call C.G. The applicant did not do so. C.G. followed up on October 10, 2013 to confirm whether the applicant had taught the client how to self-inject and had discharged the client safely. There followed an exchange of e-mails between the applicant and C.G. on October 11, 2013, in which the applicant failed to respond to C.G.’s specific question as to whether she had taught the client to self-inject. Ultimately, C.G. was required to write a lengthy e-mail to the applicant on October 15, 2013 setting out the circumstances leading to this client’s discharge and asking the same question for the third time. The applicant ultimately responded later that day to finally confirm that she had provided teaching to the client on an ongoing basis and that the client had self-injected with the applicant’s supervision prior to discharge. In my view, not only does this incident not support an allegation of any violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code, it provides an illustration of the kind of issues the respondent experienced with the applicant.
27As stated above, the applicant met with the respondent’s Human Resources Leader (M.T.) on October 21, 2013. M.T. became involved because, on the basis of the alleged conduct of F.L. at the September 5, 2013 meeting, the applicant had refused to meet further with F.L. The applicant states that at the October 21, 2013 meeting, she asked M.T. to stop her direct supervisor (C.G.) from contacting the applicant in any way. The applicant alleges that M.T. said she would investigate and get back to the applicant. The applicant then raises an issue that on November 5, 2013, C.G. e-mailed her to obtain an explanation for why the applicant had booked off that day. The applicant submitted this e-mail exchange for the purpose of the preliminary hearing. C.G. clearly states that the information she received was that the applicant had booked off with no reason given. That is clearly in error as the applicant had sent an e-mail saying that she was home sick. However, not being given the correct information is not a basis to support an allegation that C.G. violated the applicant’s rights under the Code.
28In any event, the applicant then wrote an e-mail to the Human Resources Leader (M.T.) saying that the applicant had raised that she did not want her direct supervisor to contact her and asked why C.G. was still sending her e-mails. M.T. replied that as the applicant’s supervisor, C.G. was sending e-mails to the applicant because she needed to be able to communicate with the applicant. That, to me, is self-evident and not any basis to support an allegation of a violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code.
29As stated above, on October 21, 2013, the applicant met with the Human Resources Leader (M.T.) to discuss her issues and concerns. M.T. then proceeded to look into the applicant’s issues and concerns, and issued a letter to the applicant dated November 12, 2013 with the results of her investigation. The applicant’s issues and concerns as understood by M.T. centered on allegations of inappropriate treatment of the applicant by three management representatives: the applicant’s supervisor (C.G.); the Human Resources Manager (F.L.); and the Regional Director (L.C.).
30The allegations against the applicant’s supervisor (C.G.) relate to events alleged to have occurred beyond the one year period prior to the filing of the Application. Briefly, the applicant alleges that at a performance appraisal meeting in June 2012, C.G. tried to get the applicant to make positive statements about C.G. in her performance appraisal in exchange for a promise of a $0.60 per hour wage increase. The applicant alleges that when she refused, C.G. allegedly threatened to report the applicant to the College of Nurses of Ontario (“CNO”) and to have the applicant’s wage increase reduced to $0.25 per hour. The applicant also raised allegations about comments C.G. is alleged to have made at staff meetings.
31M.T. reviewed the applicant’s June 2012 performance appraisal and noted that C.G. had given the applicant an overall “good” rating and that comments made by C.G. encouraging the applicant to improve her communications were not harsh or threatening. M.T. also found that C.G. had not threatened to report the applicant to the CNO, as there was no reason or basis for her to do so. With regard to the wage increase, M.T. noted that the $0.25 per hour increase awarded to the applicant was consistent with the respondent organization’s wage program for that year, and that an increase of $0.60 per hour would have far exceeded the maximum increase for any RPN. As a result, M.T. found that such a wage increase could not have been promised by C.G. There also was no evidence of any communication by C.G. following the performance appraisal meeting seeking to have the applicant’s wage increase reduced. With regard to the comments alleged to have been made by C.G. at staff meetings, M.T. found that these comments were not made, as there was no reason for C.G. to make these alleged comments.
32As noted above, M.T.’s letter of November 12, 2013 does not address any allegation raised by the applicant that C.G. made fun of her accent at any meeting following the June 2012 performance appraisal meeting, nor does this letter address any allegation that C.G. stated at the June 2012 performance appraisal meeting and at a subsequent staff meeting, “you with your broken English” as alleged by the applicant at the preliminary hearing. Nor is there any subsequent document or communication by the applicant in response to M.T.’s letter stating that the applicant had raised any such allegations and that M.T. had failed to address them in her investigation. In my view, the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached is that the applicant did not raise any such allegations with M.T.
33With regard to the Human Resources Manager (F.L.), the applicant alleged that F.L. had shouted at her throughout the meeting on September 5, 2013. M.T. spoke with the three other individuals in attendance at this meeting, and reports their confirmation that F.L. did not shout at the applicant at any time during the September 5 meeting. Indeed, M.T. reports that these three individuals state that the applicant became agitated and raised her voice towards the end of the meeting, and was asked by F.L. to lower her voice.
34With regard to the Regional Director (L.C.), the applicant alleged that during the September 5, 2013 meeting, L.C. made an insulting comment about the applicant not having a fax machine. This allegation was raised directly with L.C. at the October 21, 2013 meeting and when L.C. said that she had just been trying to explain the supplies ordering process to the applicant, the applicant said that L.C. was lying even before her eyes. The applicant also raised allegations about L.C. contacting the applicant’s clients and about L.C. blocking the applicant’s e-mails, which have been discussed above.
35With regard to the alleged comment about the fax machine, M.T. reported that L.C. did not know one way or another whether the applicant had a fax machine, and would not have made the comment alleged. With regard to contacting the applicant’s clients, and as discussed above, L.C. did contact one of the applicant’s clients due to positive feedback received regarding the care provided by the applicant, to see if this client would agree to participate in a promotional video. M.T. reported that other client contacts would have been made by the third party retained by the respondent organization to do random surveys. Finally, M.T. reported that while L.C. had stated that there was an issue with the supply company receiving e-mails from staff of the respondent organization; L.C. did not say that either she or the supply company were blocking the applicant’s e-mails.
36While I appreciate that the applicant disagrees with the findings of M.T.’s investigation, the mere fact of such disagreement does not mean that M.T.’s investigation or her letter of November 12, 2013 support any alleged violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code for two reasons. First, there is no indication, apart from the reference to people making fun of the applicant’s accent in the applicant’s September 17, 2013 e-mail without any specifics or particulars, to support that the applicant raised with M.T. any alleged violation of her rights under the Code as opposed to general allegations of unfair or inappropriate treatment by supervisory or management staff. Second, it appears from M.T.’s letter that the applicant’s allegations were taken seriously and investigated, and a thorough report of the investigation was provided to the applicant. When investigating allegations, even allegations which raise Code issues, an employer is not required to be perfect or even be right in terms of the end result. An employer simply needs to take the allegations seriously and take appropriate steps in response. That appears to be what the respondent organization did in this instance.
37There is a statement made by M.T. at the end of her report which is telling. M.T. states: “Based on my investigation, it appears that, in many areas of your concern, you misunderstood or misinterpreted what was said to you, thereby, leading you to believe that there was inappropriate behaviour or action / treatment against you when there was none.” In my view, this statement accurately encapsulates a reasoned and objective look at many if not all of the applicant’s allegations.
38The next allegation raised in the Application relates to an event on December 5, 2013, where the applicant was assigned to treat a client in a retirement home and was unable to find the client’s chart. The applicant states that she called the office to obtain advice, as she was unable to provide care to the client without the client’s chart. She states that she was told to conduct a full assessment of the client in the absence of the chart. The applicant thereupon asked to speak to her interim supervisor. While she was waiting for the interim supervisor to come on the line, the client’s chart was found. The applicant had concerns about the lack of supplies for this client and the lack of a wound care plan, and states that she was instructed as to what she should do and followed these instructions. There is nothing in this incident that supports any alleged violation of the applicant’s Code rights.
39The next allegation raised in the Application relates to an event on December 31, 2013, where a client was assigned to the applicant. The applicant received a message from a nurse stating that this client needed supplies, which the applicant obtained before visiting the client. The applicant states that she told the client that if she had not received more supplies in a few days, the client should call the office. The applicant states that on January 3, 2014, she received an e-mail from the office stating that, as the applicant was the last staff member to see the aforementioned client, the applicant should order supplies for her. The applicant replied by saying that the first nurse who had seen this client had promised to order supplies, and that nurse should be the one who ordered more supplies. The office then called the applicant while she was treating another client, and the applicant answered her phone. The applicant alleges that the staff person who called her was shouting at her on the phone and saying that she should not have answered her phone while treating a client and that this would be reported to management. The applicant states that she raised this issue at a subsequent staff meeting.
40The next allegation in the Application relates to an event on January 14, 2014, when the applicant was contacted at her home after work hours about a client that the office said was on the applicant’s board for the day but that the applicant had not visited. The applicant denies that this client was on her board. The applicant states that she also raised this issue at a subsequent staff meeting the following day.
41On January 24, 2014, the applicant received an e-mail from her new supervisor (L.M.), asking the applicant to come in to the office to discuss a few issues regarding supplies and an argument with a staff member at the office. L.M. asked the applicant to provide some dates when she would be available to meet, so that L.M. could coordinate the meeting with the Regional Director (L.C.) who would also be attending the meeting. The applicant replied shortly thereafter, to ask who the staff member was and what argument was being referred to. The applicant did not provide available dates for the requested meeting.
42L.M. replied the following Monday, January 27, 2014 to say that the issue involved a discussion with a coordinator named Denise and supply ordering. L.M. once again asked the applicant to provide her available dates for the meeting. The applicant replied that same day to say that she had not had a conversation with Denise. Once again, the applicant did not provide any available dates. L.M. replied that the conversation was back in December and that they could discuss it when the applicant came in for the meeting. The applicant replied to say that this was the coordinator who had yelled at her when she was in a client’s home and who had said that management would speak with the applicant. The applicant stated that she already had expressed her concern about this person’s behaviour to her supervisor, and that she needed to know why she was coming to see L.M. Once again, the applicant did not provide any available dates. L.M. replied on January 27, 2014 that she still needed to discuss the issue with the applicant as well as supply ordering, and for the third time asked for the applicant’s available dates. The applicant did not respond to L.M.’s e-mail.
43As a result, on February 4, 2014, L.M. followed up with the applicant yet again to say that she still needed to discuss a few issues with the applicant, and asked for the applicant’s available dates that week and suggested some times. The applicant replied shortly afterwards to ask what were the issues to be discussed at the meeting, and whether it would be the issues the applicant had raised. Yet again, the applicant did not provide any available dates or respond to the times proposed by L.M. L.M. replied to repeat that the meeting was in relation to the issue with the coordinator and supply ordering, to which the applicant replied by asking whether this was the same coordinator that she had expressed concerns about. The applicant then sent a further e-mail asking who would be in attendance at the meeting, to which L.M. replied that it would be herself and the Regional Director (L.C.). L.M. once again asked the applicant for her available dates. The applicant finally replied on February 4, 2014 to say that she wanted to attend the meeting with her staff representative, and if the staff representative was available, she would attend a meeting the following day. As a result, the meeting was scheduled for February 5, 2013 in the early afternoon.
44As it turned out, there was a bad storm and the meeting needed to be postponed. In the meantime, the Application raises an issue about a client the applicant was assigned to visit sometime in February 2014. The applicant states that prior to visiting this client, she had received a report from another RPN in her group who said that she had visited this client and that his apartment was in terrible condition and was unsafe, and covered in cockroaches, mouse feces and urine. This RPN told the applicant that she had reported these conditions to their supervisor, the Regional Director and the CCAC. Thereafter, this client was assigned to the applicant. The applicant states that as she was on her way to the client’s apartment, she encountered a cleaning company that had been hired to clean the apartment, and they recommended that she not go in there. The applicant states that she went into the apartment anyway as it was her responsibility as an RPN. She states that once she got into the apartment, she called her supervisor to report the conditions and how unsafe it was for the applicant to be there. She says that the supervisor advised her to order supplies for the client urgently and ask if he could wait until the following day to receive care. The client refused, and said that he needed his dressing changed that day, as it had not been changed for a few days. The applicant states that she went back to this apartment on two further occasions, and the office did nothing to stop her from going there. She states that on her last visit, the condition of the apartment was even worse.
45I appreciate that, in caring for this client, the applicant was required to subject herself to a terrible home environment that may very well have been unsafe. The applicant is to be commended for her dedication in treating this client, despite the condition of his home. Having said that, it is not this Tribunal’s jurisdiction to address alleged health and safety issues. This Tribunal’s jurisdiction solely relates to allegations of discrimination or harassment on a ground protected under the Code. At the preliminary hearing, I asked the applicant what was the basis for any allegation that this incident gave rise to an alleged violation of her Code rights. The applicant replied that her allegation was based on her being put in a harmful position as a Muslim woman from Iran. She disputes the respondent’s position that five other nurses had been assigned to care for this client, and states that there was only one nurse assigned to this patient and she refused to go. However, on the basis of the applicant’s own Application, it is clear that at least one other RPN had been assigned to care for this client and had been into his apartment. As a result, the basis for the applicant’s allegation that the assignment of this client to her amounts to discrimination because of race or creed is entirely unclear to me. As a result, in my view, this allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.
46The meeting between the applicant, her staff representative, L.M. and L.C. ultimately took place on February 20, 2014. The applicant states that she attended the meeting for the purpose of discussing her concerns about the coordinator, but that the Regional Director (L.C.) started the meeting by saying that they were there to talk about L.C.’s concerns. The applicant states that she said, “This is dishonest. We are here to talk about my concerns”. From a review of the e-mails, while the applicant raised her own concerns in the e-mail exchange with her supervisor, the meeting clearly had been scheduled to discuss management’s concerns about the applicant’s argument with the coordinator and supply ordering. The Regional Director proceeded to raise the issues from December 5, 2013 regarding the client in the retirement home and from January 3, 2014 regarding the ordering of supplies for the client seen by the applicant on December 31, 2013. Based upon what is set out in the Application, the applicant states that she responded vigorously to these concerns. The applicant states that the Regional Director then said that the applicant needed help with self-management. The applicant states that, as she was leaving the meeting, she said that she did not need to listen to these insulting comments, that if anyone needed self-management it was the Regional Director, that the first step is to be honest, and that she would be complaining to Human Resources about this.
47On February 24, 2014, the applicant received an e-mail from her supervisor (L.M.) to arrange a meeting to follow up on the conversation from the meeting on February 19, 2014. L.M. advised that the Regional Director (L.C.) would also attend the meeting, as well as a staff representative for the applicant. L.M. suggested two dates for the meeting to take place the week of February 24 and requested a response by noon the following day. On February 25, 2014 at 12:30 p.m., the applicant replied to say that, due to what had happened during the last meeting with the Regional Director, she would like to arrange a meeting with Human Resources for the following week to express her concerns about the Regional Director’s insulting comments toward the applicant during the last meeting. The applicant stated that she would be available the following week with a staff representative of her choice.
48L.M. responded on February 26, 2014 to say that she still needed to follow up with the applicant regarding the conversation at the last meeting, and suggested some times to meet with the applicant the following week. As the applicant had indicated that she wanted to express some concerns about the Regional Director to Human Resources, L.M. stated that she had arranged for the Human Resources Manager (F.L.) to attend the meeting in place of the Regional Director. The applicant replied on February 28, 2014 to say that there should be another Human Resources representative at the meeting, and not F.L.
49On March 4, 2014, L.M. replied to say that she would like to meet with the applicant on March 11, 2014 in the early afternoon and that she had arranged for the Human Resources Leader (M.T.) to attend the meeting in place of F.L. The applicant asked if the meeting could be moved to March 12, 2014, to which L.M. agreed. Once again, due to inclement weather, this meeting needed to be postponed to March 17, 2014.
50In the meantime, pending the March 17, 2014 meeting, the Application raises two further allegations. First, on March 4, 2014, the applicant sent in a vacation request for March 19, 2014. The applicant states that she never received a response to this request. The respondent acknowledges that this request was not responded to, as it planned to terminate the applicant’s employment at the meeting on March 11, 2014 which was later postponed to March 17, 2014. Second, on March 5, 2014, the applicant received an e-mail from her supervisor which the applicant characterizes as blaming her for lost revenue. This e-mail is in the materials before me, and references the respondent organization’s contractual obligation to report to the CCAC in a timely manner. It states that due to late or missed reports by the applicant, the respondent organization lost revenue, and specific amounts are cited for August, September and October 2013. The e-mail asks the applicant to be cognizant of the dates that client reports are due, given the lost revenue and impact on the CCAC contract. The respondent states that similar e-mails were sent out to a number of RNs and RPNs. The applicant followed up with her supervisor to say that this was the first she had heard that any of her reports were late or missing, and she asked for specific details. The supervisor responded that she was acting on information from the quarter prior to when she started, but stated that her message was just for the applicant to be aware of what happens when she does not report on time. In my view, there is nothing in either of these two allegations that supports an alleged violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code.
51The meeting between the applicant, her staff representative, L.M. and M.T. took place on March 17, 2014. The applicant states that, at the start of this meeting, M.T. accused her of using her Blackberry to record the meeting, which the applicant denies. The applicant states that M.T. was shouting at her, and she asked M.T. not to speak to her like that and not to shout at her. She also states that she said to M.T., “Do not lie about me before my eyes accusing me of recording you”. The applicant states that she then added, “looks like there are many people in this organization that are suffering from some type of mental illness, it is common practice from staff in position of power to shout and yell at people”, and that she then asked M.T. whether something was bothering her or whether she was stressed, and suggested that perhaps M.T. should be sitting at home and not taking out her frustration on the applicant. The applicant states that she was then provided with a letter by M.T. and informed that her employment with the respondent organization was terminated without cause.
52At the preliminary hearing, I asked the applicant to identify the basis upon which she was alleging that the termination of her employment was a violation of her rights under the Code. The applicant started by saying that there was no reason for the respondent to fire her. Once again, I find this allegation hard to accept. In the months leading up to the termination of the applicant’s employment: she had accused the Regional Director of lying; she had raised allegations against various management representatives which were investigated and found to be unsupported; she had refused to attend a meeting with the Regional Director; she had refused to attend meetings with the Human Resources Manager; in response to the Regional Director’s comment about the applicant needing self-management, the applicant had told the Regional Director that she was the one who needed self-management; at the termination meeting, she accused management representatives of mental illness and suggested that the Human Resources Leader should be sitting at home rather than being at work. This is not based on the respondent’s position or evidence, but is apparent from the applicant’s own words in the Application and in the material filed by her with this Tribunal. While I appreciate that the applicant may have felt that she was being treated unfairly or inappropriately, it is difficult for me to see how an employer can effectively manage an employee who conducts herself in the manner exhibited by the applicant. In light of her own admitted behaviour, it is my view that, by the time her employment was terminated, the applicant through her own conduct had effectively rendered herself ungovernable.
53In order for an applicant to establish a reasonable prospect of success, it is not enough to string together a litany of all of the perceived negative experiences that an applicant has had in the course of her employment, and then assert that these negative experiences must be attributable to the applicant’s Code-protected personal characteristics. There must be some coherent basis to demonstrate a link or connection between the alleged negative experiences and the Code-protected grounds identified in the Application. That, in my view, is entirely lacking here.
54As previously stated by this Tribunal, while discrimination based on race or colour can be subtle and hard to detect, an applicant must nevertheless provide some reasonable basis for making allegations of such discrimination. It is not sufficient to claim discrimination as a member of a group protected under the Code and to look to a hearing process before the Tribunal as the means to discover whether such discrimination occurred; there must be some reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to her can show a link between the events alleged and a prohibited ground: see Pathak v. Siemens Milltronics Process Instruments, 2012 HRTO 1602; Preddie v. Saint Elizabeth Health Care, 2011 HRTO 2098.
55As in Pathak, above, in reaching my conclusion that the allegations raised in the Application that are alleged to have occurred within the one year period preceding the filing of the Application have no reasonable prospect of success, I have considered the nature of the applicant’s allegations and the number of other people in the respondent organization alleged to have been implicated in these allegations. As I have reviewed in detail above, many of the applicant’s allegations arise out of fairly routine work interactions and issues that demonstrate no apparent connection or link to her race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed or reprisal. Other allegations relate to meetings at which the applicant alleges she was shouted at or lied to or otherwise treated unfairly, again with no apparent connection to any Code-protected ground. Further, and just dealing with the applicant’s allegations from the year preceding the filing of her Application, the applicant’s allegations implicate: two different supervisors and an interim supervisor; the Regional Director; the Human Resources Manager; the Human Resources Leader; and the office coordinator. If I were also to consider the untimely allegations that extend back at least to 2010, many other individuals are implicated in these allegations, including: a number of nurses on the applicant’s team; the Chaplain; and a number of former supervisors. Indeed, at the preliminary hearing before me, the applicant expressly alleged a vast conspiracy within the respondent organization to find fault with her and to ultimately get her fired. In my view, such an allegation is simply insupportable.
56The Application does raise some specific allegations that more directly touch on the applicant’s race, place of origin, ethnic origin and/or creed. As already discussed at length above, the applicant alleges in the Application that on one occasion in the summer of 2012, her then supervisor (C.G.) made fun of her accent at a staff meeting. She elaborated on this allegation at the preliminary hearing by alleging that C.G. also made fun of her accent on another occasion in March 2013, and made reference to her “broken English” at the performance appraisal meeting in June 2012 and again at the staff meeting in the summer of 2012. Even if I were to accept this evidence for the purpose of the issues to be determined at this preliminary hearing, the only allegations raised against C.G. during the one year period prior to the filing of the Application relate to: C.G. calling the applicant because she was unable to find a form; C.G. visiting a client of the applicant’s at the direction of the CCAC; and C.G. sending an e-mail to the applicant after the applicant had told M.T. that she did not want C.G. to communicate with her. Having carefully reviewed these allegations, and even if on some previous occasion C.G. in fact had made fun of the applicant’s accent and referred to her “broken English” as alleged, there is nothing in the allegations against C.G. that occurred within the one year period that in any way can reasonably be linked or connected to the applicant’s race, place of origin, ethnic origin or creed.
57Further, again even if I were to accept that on some previous occasions C.G. had done the things alleged by the applicant, there is nothing to link or connect C.G.’s alleged conduct to the allegations raised as against the many other individuals implicated in the allegations raised in the Application, which involve different people, on different occasions and in entirely different circumstances. I say the same with regard to the vague allegation raised in the applicant’s e-mail dated September 17, 2013 that many people in the organization felt that it was okay for them to make fun of her accent. First, I note that no such allegation is actually raised in the Application itself. However, when pressed at the preliminary hearing to provide details or specifics, the applicant was unable to provide any such details or specifics (apart from her allegations against C.G.) except that this conduct was engaged in by certain unidentified nurses on unidentified occasions in unidentified contexts. Even if this broad allegation was included in the Application, which it is not, and even if I got past the fact that the applicant is unable to provide any details or specifics of this broad allegation, there still remains the absence of any link or connection between some unidentified nurses making fun of the applicant’s accent and the specific allegations raised against various management representatives that occurred within the one year period prior to the filing of the Application.
58The Application also raises a number of untimely allegations against certain nurses who worked as part of the applicant’s group. There was an issue about the applicant wearing a black and white scarf when visiting a client, and the client is alleged to have told a nurse that the applicant was a terrorist and that they did not want the applicant in their house. Even if this is true, this is the client’s prejudice and not that of the nurse or anyone else at the respondent organization. The applicant also alleges that when she was visiting a client who previously had been visited by the same nurse, the client asked the applicant what her nationality and religion were, and the applicant said she is a Muslim from Iran. The applicant says that the client replied that she is always welcome in his home and he does not like to get involved in “this”. Once again, this is a question raised by a client and the applicant’s response to the client, with no clear indication that the nurse made reference to the applicant’s creed or place of origin. At the preliminary hearing, the applicant stated that these allegations relate to the period prior to 2011.
59The applicant states that another nurse told a client that she does not like the applicant and that the applicant is not a real nurse, and wanted the client to call the office to complain about the applicant. The client told the applicant that he really liked her and that she had been taking good care of him. There is nothing in this allegation to link to the applicant’s race, place of origin, ethnic origin or creed.
60The applicant next alleges that a third nurse was making coffee at her home but offered the applicant tea that had been in her cupboard for a long time. The applicant also alleges that she ran into this same nurse at a drug store, and the nurse said, “you shop at the same store that I shop at”. I fail to see how either of these allegations are in any way connected to the applicant’s race, place of origin, ethnic origin or creed. The one allegation against this nurse that does appear to be race-related relates to a comment the nurse is alleged to have made about a new client from the Middle East, and that this client “should not be in service, they come to our country and use taxpayer’s money”. The applicant does not recall when this comment is alleged to have been made, although from the narrative attached to the Application it appears to have been made well before June 2013. While this alleged comment, if true, may serve to provide evidence of this one nurse’s anti-Muslim bias, it has no connection to the allegations raised by the applicant in relation to the one year period prior to the filing of her Application.
61With regard to a fourth nurse, the applicant alleges that when she was at a client’s home providing care for the client for the first time, the client asked if she was the nurse that everyone hates and does not want to work with, and asked whether this was because the applicant is from Iran and is Muslim. This is the client’s own speculation, and is not evidence of the nurse’s anti-Muslim bias. The applicant alleges that another client told her that he has a daughter who is a nurse and who asked the client not to get involved in “this”, and that they understand that Muslims are having a hard time and the client could not ask for a better nurse to take care of him. Once again, this allegation, even if true, rests on the client’s own views and perception, and does not provide evidence of anti-Muslim bias on the part of the nurse or anyone else at the respondent organization.
62While not in the Application, the applicant’s Reply as filed with the Tribunal raises a general allegation that unidentified “staff” referred to the applicant’s place of origin as a terrorist country, No specifics or particulars are provided. This is followed by an allegation about a comment alleged to have been made by an unidentified office staff member, who is alleged to have said that Iran is in the news again, as it was the Iranian new year, and that this is the only time Iran has been in the news for something other than terrorist activity. While I take the applicant’s point that this can be construed as a negative comment regarding her place of origin, once again no connection or link is made between this alleged comment and the allegations against various management representatives within the one year period prior to the filing of the Application.
63The applicant further alleges that the respondent organization is a Christian organization with predominantly Christian supervisors whose primary responsibility is toward Christian clients, and that this pro-Christian bias contributed to the discrimination against her as a Muslim from Iran. The respondent acknowledges that the organization had religious roots when it started over a century ago, but asserts that this is no longer the case and that the respondent has many employees of various religions. The applicant’s belief about the nature of the respondent organization appears to be rooted in a comment made to her by one of the nurses that the respondent organization is a Christian organization and that its first responsibility is towards Christians, and that is why the organization is doing nothing to help the applicant. Even if true, this alleged comment is a reflection of this nurse’s own personal belief, and does not provide evidence of a pro-Christian bias on the part of the various management representatives implicated by the applicant in relation to the allegations within the one year period prior to the filing of the Application.
64The applicant also relies on certain allegations made against the respondent’s Chaplain, namely that he stood in front of her to pray and that he touched her on the shoulder and told her that no-one wanted her there. These allegations date back to 2012 and prior. The respondent states that the Chaplain is multi-faith and that the prayers are non-denominational. Whether that is the case or not, I still fail to see any link or connection between the alleged actions of the Chaplain and the allegations made against various management representatives in the one year period preceding the filing of the Application.
65As a result, I find that the applicant has not satisfied me that the allegations raised in the Application within the one year period preceding the filing of her Application have a reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, these allegations are dismissed.
66By Request for Order dated October 27, 2014, the applicant sought to amend her Application to raise a further allegation against the respondent arising out of the initial denial of Employment Insurance (E.I.) benefits by Service Canada. The initial denial of E.I. benefits was made on the basis that the applicant has lost her employment due to misconduct. This was communicated to the applicant by letter dated July 17, 2014. The applicant sought reconsideration of this decision, and it was overturned by letter dated September 22, 2014.
67The applicant stated at the preliminary hearing that the E.I. officer had told her that her former supervisor (L.M.) had said that the applicant had lost her job due to misconduct, but could not provide any examples of this alleged misconduct. The applicant says that the E.I. officer told her that he had called and left a message for L.M., and his call was returned by the Human Resources Leader (M.T.). The applicant says that she was told by the E.I. officer that M.T. acknowledged that the applicant had not been terminated for misconduct, but stated that there were many performance issues with her. She says that she asked the E.I. officer whether M.T. explained the alleged performance issues, and he said no.
68It is clear that the termination of the applicant’s employment was done on a without cause basis, as indicated in the termination letter. At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, it is not my role to make findings of fact as to what L.M. or M.T. did or did not say to the E.I. office. However, as discussed above, it is clear from the applicant’s own narrative and materials that there were a number of issues that led up to the termination of her employment. It is the role of the E.I. office, not the respondent, to determine whether or not these issues support a finding of misconduct so as to justify the denial of E.I. benefits. Even if I were to accept the applicant’s statement that L.M. told the E.I. office that the applicant lost her job due to misconduct and that M.T. told the E.I. officer that there were performance issues, this in and of itself is not sufficient to support that the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success in establishing that these alleged comments to the E.I. office constitute a violation of her rights under the Code. In order for the applicant to establish that she has a reasonable prospect of success in relation to this allegation, she would need to be able to satisfy me that there is evidence that she has or that is reasonably available to her to indicate that her race, place or origin, ethnic origin or creed was a factor in the making of these alleged comments or that these alleged comments were made in reprisal for her seeking to claim or enforce her rights under the Code. Based upon my review of the incidents leading up to the termination of the applicant’s employment, I find that she has no reasonable prospect of doing so. Accordingly, this allegation is also dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Allegations from period prior to one year before filing of Application
69Section 34 of the Code states:
34.(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,
(a) within one year after the incidents to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.
(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
70This Tribunal has held that timely allegations in an application which have no reasonable prospect of success cannot form part of a series of incidents for the purposes of section 34(1)(b) of the Code: see Chappell v. Securitas Canada Limited, 2012 HRTO 874; Garland v. Canusa-CPS, 2012 HRTO 1309; Reiner v. Sarnia (City), 2014 HRTO 498.
71Having found that all of the allegations raised in the Application that relate to events that are alleged to have occurred within the one year period preceding the filing of the Application have no reasonable prospect of success, the remaining allegations raised in the Application which pre-date this one year period cannot be relied upon by the applicant as forming part of a “series of incidents” within the meaning of s. 34(1)(b) of the Code that extends to and includes any timely allegation. Accordingly, with regard to the remaining untimely allegations raised in the Application, these all fall beyond the one year time limit set out in s. 34(1) of the Code.
72As a result, I need to consider whether the applicant’s delay in raising the untimely allegations set out in the Application was “incurred in good faith” within the meaning of s. 34(2) of the Code. The onus is on an applicant under s. 34(2) of the Code to satisfy this Tribunal that the delay in filing an application was incurred in good faith. This requires that the applicant provide some reasonable explanation for the delay: Imrie-Howlett v. Peel District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1339. In Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, this Tribunal held that an applicant is required to show something more than simply an absence of bad faith. In Miller, above, it was held that the one-year time limit is consistent with the policy objective that human rights claims should be dealt with expeditiously, and requires an applicant to act with due diligence when they seek to pursue a human rights claim.
73In a letter filed by the applicant with the Tribunal dated Sept 3, 2015, the applicant explained her delay in bringing forward the untimely allegations raised in the Application on two bases. First, she states that she tried to resolve the matters within the organization, including filing complaints with supervisors and the Human Resources department. Second, she states that she was not in a position to file a formal complaint with this Tribunal because she was afraid that she would face harsher bullying and discrimination and would have lost her job earlier. At the preliminary hearing, I asked the applicant whether these were the only bases that she was relying on to explain the delay, and the applicant did not provide any other explanations.
74With regard to the applicant’s explanation that she did not bring her untimely allegations forward to this Tribunal at an earlier stage because she was trying to resolve matters internally within the respondent organization by filing complaints, this Tribunal has held that persons who feel their rights have been violated are expected to file an application within the one-year time limit specified in the Code, even if this means that they are seeking redress from two different entities or waiting for the result of an internal investigation: see Agyei-Abankwa v. University of Windsor, 2012 HRTO 92; Cartier v. Northeast Mental Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 1670; Poole v. Trent University, 2011 HRTO 2086; Foley v. CAW-Canada Local 222, 2011 HRTO 1224; SB v. Toronto (City), 2012 HRTO 2018. As a result, this explanation by the applicant has been held by this Tribunal not to provide a justification for delay so as to satisfy the requirement to establish that the delay was incurred in “good faith”.
75With regard to the second explanation provided by the applicant, the Code contains express provisions regarding reprisal and threat of reprisal. This Tribunal has held that fear of reprisal cannot, generally, constitute a good faith basis for delay: see N.M. v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, 2012 HRTO 282; Stone v. Millwright Regional Council of Ontario, Local 1592, 2013 HRTO 278; Darroch v. Lakeshore (Town), 2015 HRTO 919. In this regard, I note that the applicant had no apparent difficulty in raising complaints and allegations internally with the respondent organization, relating to many of the allegations set out in her Application. In my view, given that she already had raised many of these allegations internally, it does not make sense to me that the applicant would fear any greater retaliation or reprisal by raising these same allegations through filing an application with this Tribunal. In my view, this second explanation also does not provide a sufficient justification for the applicant’s delay in raising the untimely allegations sufficient to constitute “good faith” within the meaning of s. 34(1) of the Code.
76As I have found that the only explanations for the applicant’s delay are not sufficient to satisfy the requirement in s. 34(2) of the Code that the delay was incurred in good faith, I do not need to address the issue as to whether the delay would cause any substantial prejudice to the respondent.
77As a result, the remaining allegations raised in the Application are dismissed for delay.
Request for removal of personal respondents
78As I have found that all of the allegations raised in the Application either should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success or for delay, in my view there is no basis for this proceeding to continue against the personal respondents. As a result, I am exercising my discretion to remove the personal respondents as parties to this proceeding and have amended the title of proceeding accordingly.
ORDER
79For all of the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following order:
a. The Application is dismissed in its entirety as having no reasonable prospect of success and/or for delay; and
b. The personal respondents be removed as parties to this proceeding and the title of proceeding has been amended accordingly.
Dated at Toronto, this 8^th^ day of June, 2016.
“Signed By”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair