Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-5805 DATE: 20170614 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

BONNIE MCDONALD Plaintiff – and – REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Defendant

Counsel: Acting in Person Carla Black, for the Defendant

HEARD: May 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 31 June 1, 2, 28, July 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, October 17, November 7, December 1, 2016

TZIMAS, J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1] Ms. McDonald commenced an action against The Regional Municipality of Peel (“Peel”) on December 21, 2009. In her claim she alleged that management at Peel Manor, where she was working as a Financial Control Clerk, “wrongfully and negligently” suspected that she was having an affair with the then Commissioner of Health, and initiated a wrongful and vexatious course of conduct that was deleterious and harmful to her. Those activities included the spreading of rumours, clandestine visual surveillance at all hours of the day and night at her home, trespass to her motor vehicle, specific requests to the police to place her under investigation and the recruitment of various individuals to spy on her. Ms. McDonald also alleged that she was exposed and subjected to various adverse conditions at her workplace that were harmful to her health, safety and her ability to work. Ms. McDonald claims “special, general, punitive and exemplary damages” in the sum of $5 million.

[2] The trial of this matter occurred over a period of 21 days, starting on May 11, 2016 and concluding on December 1, 2016. The trial had to be adjourned on a few occasions to accommodate particular deficiencies in Ms. McDonald’s preparation for trial and then to accommodate a scheduling problem with Peel’s expert. The following endorsements outline the particular rulings made in the course of this trial: McDonald v. Regional Municipality of Peel, 2016 ONSC 3649, 2016 ONSC 4377 and 2016 ONSC 4378.

[3] Ms. McDonald called evidence from ten witnesses in addition to herself. Those witness contradicted Ms. McDonald in all material aspects of her claims. Peel called expert opinion evidence from Dr. Woodside who concluded that Ms. McDonald has a psychiatric disorder that impairs her perception and insights and causes her to misinterpret otherwise innocuous events as attempts to target her.

[4] For the reasons that follow, regrettably for Ms. McDonald, her claim is dismissed in its entirety. Despite Ms. McDonald’s extraordinary efforts to call evidence in support of her claim, she admitted repeatedly that she had no evidence to support her allegations but that she was certain that the various incidents underlying her allegations actually occurred. The various witnesses that Ms. McDonald called were unequivocal in their absolute denial of her allegations. This is not a case where the court had to consider probabilities to come to its conclusions; rather, there was no evidence to support any of Ms. McDonald’s claims. Similarly, there was no evidence that Ms. McDonald suffered any damages at the hands of Peel. If anything, Ms. McDonald’s narrative revealed to this court that she faces a number of serious and unfortunate challenges that are unrelated to Peel.

[5] The court was very concerned throughout the trial that through her pursuit of her claim Ms. McDonald may have been compromising herself with potentially unsupported prejudicial allegations and exposing herself to costs and financial expenses for which she had limited means. The court cautioned Ms. McDonald and also invited her to consider a mid-trial pre-trial. Ms. McDonald was clear that she wanted to proceed with her trial. As that is a right of a litigant, the court allowed her to do so: see, for example Chasczewski Estate v. 528089 Ontario Inc., 2011 ONSC 999, at para. 25; Lin v. Rock, 2015 ONSC 2421, 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 424, at para. 11; Lipton v. Morgan, 1988 CarswellOnt 4731 (W.L.), at para. II.3 (S.C. (H. Ct. J.)).

BACKGROUND

[6] Ms. McDonald began working for Peel in January 1989 as a Financial Control Clerk. For the first 12 years she worked at Trans Help, a division of Peel that provided transportation for people with disabilities. In or about 2001 she was transferred to Peel Manor.

[7] Ms. McDonald alleges that she began to encounter various difficulties with her employment starting at some point in 2005. By 2009 she decided she needed to take action and commenced her claim.

[8] Up until the commencement of the trial Ms. McDonald remained employed with Peel.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

a. Ms. McDonald

[9] The essential components of Ms. McDonald’s claim are reflected in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of her statement of claim. In paragraph 8 she identified a number of managerial employees who she said believed that she was having an affair with the Commissioner of Health for the Region of Peel who therefore went out of their way to confirm their suspicions. Accordingly, Ms. Macdonald alleged that these various individuals initiated a wrongful and vexatious course of conduct that was deleterious and harmful to the Plaintiff and that breached and violated her privacy. Such conduct included the following actions:

a. They spread false rumours of the existence of the alleged affair amongst other workers eventually recruiting four additional members of management employed by the Regional Municipality of Peel to assist them in falsely besmirching the Plaintiff’s reputation;

b. They attended at the Plaintiff’s home at all hours of the day and night in order to carry out intrusive and clandestine visual surveillance of her home in order to verify their suspicious;

c. They effected unlawful entry and trespassed upon the Plaintiff’s motor vehicle parked on the Defendant’s property in order to locate evidence that would confirm their suspicions;

d. They contacted members of the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Force and advised them that the Plaintiff was engaged in unlawful conduct thereby causing the police to further intrude upon the Plaintiff’s privacy, to investigate her on the basis of allegations that were untrue and unproven, and to monitor the Plaintiff’s personal conduct as well as her conduct at work; and

e. They recruited persons who worked closely with the Plaintiff to spy upon her and provide them with personal information regarding her. The names of these persons are Nancy Moore, Supervisor of Administration; Robert Woodhouse, Supervisor of Facility Services; and Doris Rice, Director of Care.

[10] Ms. McDonald further alleged that this conduct started in 2005 and continued to the time that she issued her claim on December 21, 2009. She also said that contemporaneously with the vexatious conduct, she was subjected and exposed to adverse conditions at her place of work, which were harmful to her health, safety and ability to perform her work.

[11] At paragraph 9 of her statement of claim, Ms. McDonald alleged that management implied that she destroyed and sabotaged software at her place of employment and that she was involved in acts of insubordination at her place of employment. Further, she alleged that management encouraged staff members to probe into her private affairs.

[12] In sum, Ms. McDonald argued that Peel harassed her and intentionally inflicted mental suffering on her. Alternatively, she submitted that the infliction of mental suffering was the result of negligent conduct. Ms. McDonald also seemed to allege an interference with her economic relations, an invasion of privacy, and finally, that Peel was generally negligent in its engagement with her.

[13] With respect to her damages, Ms. McDonald alleged that she experienced stress, anxiety, a shortening of her life, fear and trepidation, loss of health, financial loss and isolation, a strain on her family relationships, insomnia, uncontrollable weight gain and possible uncontrolled grain alcohol and drug consumption. She seemed to suggest that she also suffered from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), though she acknowledged that she was not diagnosed with such a condition. In addition she said that she experienced a loss of reputation, had her career options curtailed, lost the benefit of various amenities that she would have been able to enjoy at her workplace, lost her opportunity for advancement and sustained further financial and personal losses.

[14] In her testimony, Ms. McDonald outlined in some detail her various complaints. She reviewed her employment history with the Region of Peel and explained how in 2001 she started working at Peel Manor. She explained how she met Peter Graham early on in her employment with Peel and that their paths crossed again when she went to Peel Manor. At that time she thought that Mr. Graham was attracted to her. By 2002, Ms. McDonald came to believe that the people she worked with would stare at her. She began to encounter various conflicts to the point that she believed that certain individuals became very hostile with her. Remarkably, Ms. McDonald readily admitted that each of her allegations was based only on her subjective suspicions and that she had no other evidence to support her claim. She hoped that the witnesses she called would admit to their wrong-doing.

[15] In the course of her employment, Ms. McDonald took issue with various requests that were made of her, including requests that concerned: the training of a receptionist on certain software; the labeling of residents’ glasses; a reduction in her involvement with on-demand tours; changes to the admissions process; coverage of her duties when she went away on holiday or was otherwise away; difficulties with month end financial reconciliations and the fact that she was not given the proper support to do these accurately and in a timely manner; difficulties with the introduction of a new database for the management of subsidies; the request that she participate in a work audit at a time when she was very busy; and generally with the management of her workload. She felt that she was asked to undertake tasks for which she was not qualified or alternatively she would be asked to undertake tasks that others could be doing. In her view, people were not trained properly, which resulted in various inefficiencies in the operation of Peel Manor, and that, in and of itself, caused her stress. She concluded that people who worked with her were jealous of her and gave her a very hard time.

[16] In 2005 she said that she started noticing suspicious cars driving by her home. She came to believe that one of the vehicles belonged to a nurse at Peel Manor, Ranjit Calay, who was eventually promoted to being a Supervisor of Nursing, and later a Director of Care and an Administrator, and the other belonged to Janette Smith. She explained the hostility from these women became increasingly more pronounced. Then in April 2005 she saw another car parked in the schoolyard by her home. The car had its high beams on and she believed that the driver in the vehicle was Mrs. Graham.

[17] Ms. McDonald also described an incident in April 2005 when she thought that somebody went through her purse while she was at work and removed her phonebook to copy its contents. She also described how in this period there was one occasion when she found the trunk to her car unlocked and believed that somebody must have unlocked it.

[18] In 2005, Mr. McDonald came to believe that she was under a police investigation. She described how she went to a bar, struck up a conversation with a man there with the name “Donny.” Ms. McDonald concluded that he must have been an undercover cop acting at the behest of Peel. In another instance she thought that a furnace installer who attended at her home might have also been an undercover police officer. Somebody else told her that there was a gas leak in her car but when she checked it out everything was fine. Ms. McDonald linked the removal of her phonebook from her purse and the subsequent suspicious incidents to be connected and to be part of an organized attempt by management at Peel to pursue a false investigation.

[19] As further evidence of the continuing police investigation, Ms. McDonald described how she responded to a dating advertisement in the Brampton paper but then became concerned that the individual who responded was an undercover police officer. She described how she took her own mother out for Mother’s Day only to have people staring at her. She found that weird and awkward.

[20] Ms. McDonald also described in some detail an incident when she went dancing at a bar in Barrie. She said that she had some drinks and started to feel light on her feet. She drove away from the bar but lost her sense of direction. A taxi driver stopped her to ask if she was alright. Ms. McDonald said she pulled over and keeled over. Eventually the police found her, administered a breathalyzer test and took her to the police station. Ms. McDonald attributed the unfortunate events of that evening to her work colleagues. She suggested that management sent somebody out to the bar in Barrie, who then spiked her drink with grain alcohol. At some point subsequent to this incident Ms. McDonald also described how she found a death threat on her car and believed it could have originated from one of her co-workers.

[21] Finally, Ms. McDonald took issue with her performance appraisals. She said that these were heated experiences and that the assessments made her out to be only an average employee. She felt that they were inaccurate assessments and that she had to keep correcting their contents. She also felt that her supervisors were not responsive to her various concerns and that caused her stress because she felt that she was not able to perform her duties.

[22] Ms. McDonald concluded that management’s lack of training affected and explained its inability to respond to her concerns, and that in turn impacted her ability to perform her duties. As an example of this, Ms. McDonald described at some length her communication difficulties with the financial analysts and her supervisor’s inability to address the situation. Ms. McDonald blamed some of the challenges to the downloading of responsibilities concerning old peoples’ residences from the province to the municipalities.

[23] In short, Ms. McDonald believed that there was always conflict at work, that she always had to defend herself and that, although she did everything she could, things did not get better. This situation simply exhausted her. She said it was very harmful to know that she was a great worker but that she was viewed as a poor worker.

[24] In light of this situation, Ms. McDonald said that she tried to transfer out of Peel Manor and went as far as seeking out a reorganizational transfer. She admitted that she met with Peel’s senior management, including: Carolyn Clubine, Director of Long Term Care, David Szwarc, the Chief Administrative Officer of Peel, (CAO), Norma Trim, the Chief Financial Officer of Peel, (CFO), and the Commissioner of Health Services for the Regional Municipality of Peel, Janette Smith. These efforts did not result in any successful transfer. In Ms. McDonald’s view, this outcome was the result of people actively preventing her advancement. Ms. McDonald admitted that she remained employed at Peel Manor as of the beginning of the trial. In the course of the trial Ms. McDonald advised the Court of a change in her employment situation but the issue was not explored as it pertained to issues unrelated to this litigation.

[25] On the subject of damages, Ms. McDonald spoke only in general terms. She did not have a specific breakdown or quantification but essentially she believed that her life spiraled out of control as a result of the poisoned work environment within which she worked. She said that her home depreciated from a value of $800,000 to $400,000. She said she developed carpal tunnel syndrome and spinal stenosis. Her daughter’s own problems with the police and with Children’s Aid Society were an additional source of stress. She said that she could not quantify her damages but she believed that she was entitled to punitive damages in the range of $5 million.

[26] In addition to her own testimony, Ms. McDonald summoned her son to testify, she submitted an affidavit from her daughter, and she summoned the following witnesses: Doris Rice, Diane Patricia Brown, Linda Smith, Donna Clow, Ranjit Calay, Janette Smith, Nanci Moore and Karen Ball. These various witnesses described their interactions with Ms. McDonald. Although a number of them confirmed that Ms. McDonald was not always happy with her employment at Peel Manor and raised various concerns and complaints, they were uniformly astounded by Ms. McDonald and expressed disbelief, dismay and surprise. Some expressed sympathy for Ms. McDonald and wondered how she could possibly advance her allegations.

[27] With respect to Dr. Woodside’s psychiatric assessment of Ms. McDonald to the effect that she suffered from a delusional disorder, Ms. McDonald took issue with his conclusions. She submitted that she did not believe the report was either accurate or thorough. She believed that Dr. Woodside failed to take into account everything that she told him. She also explained that she was unable to obtain a rebuttal report because she was self-represented and nobody would agree to such a report. Finally, Ms. McDonald suggested that if she is suffering from any psychiatric disorder, it was caused by the stress that she suffered in the hands of the managerial staff at her workplace.

b. Region of Peel

[28] In Peel’s view, Ms. McDonald’s claim was entirely without merit and should be dismissed. Peel noted that Ms. McDonald failed to prove any of the allegations in her claim and furthermore failed to establish any wrongdoing by Peel that would entitle her to damages.

[29] In its submissions, Peel echoed the Court’s repeated observation and caution to Ms. McDonald during the course of the trial that Ms. McDonald could not engage in an inquisition of Peel’s policies and managerial practices but was bound to prove the allegations contained in her claim. The onus rested on Ms. McDonald to prove her claim and not for Peel to disprove Ms. McDonald’s allegations.

[30] With respect to a number of allegations that Ms. McDonald raised at trial but which were not outlined in her claim and were issues that pre-dated her claim, Peel urged the court to give very little weight to that evidence. Furthermore regarding the substantial portion of Ms. McDonald’s evidence that was hearsay, Peel sought to remind the court that such evidence could not be accepted for the truth of its contents and on a number of occasions attempted to block the evidence from being admitted at all.

[31] Regarding Ms. McDonald’s credibility, Peel submitted that Ms. McDonald was not a credible witness. Peel submitted that her evidence was internally contradictory. In addition, and perhaps most significantly, all of the witnesses whom she summoned contradicted her evidence in very material ways. In addition, especially in relation to the allegation concerning Peter Graham and paragraph 8 of the statement of claim, Peel submitted that the allegations were simply implausible. Finally, Peel submitted that Ms. McDonald’s credibility had to be evaluated in light of Dr. Woodside’s expert opinion that Ms. McDonald has a psychiatric disorder that impairs her insight and causes her to misinterpret otherwise innocuous events as attempts to target her.

[32] In contrast to Ms. McDonald’s difficulties, Peel observed that all of the witnesses who were called by Ms. McDonald were highly credible and forthright in their testimony. Without exception they were both internally consistent and consistent with each other.

[33] In its submissions, Peel proceeded to analyze each and every allegation that Ms. McDonald advanced to illustrate the basis for which the claim had to be dismissed in its totality. On the subject of the alleged investigation, Peel relied principally on Ms. McDonald’s own evidence that she based the allegation on her subjective suspicion. Peel highlighted for the court the fact that where Ms. McDonald referred to “they” breaking into her car, she could not say who the “they” were. Peel also analyzed the evidence of Ranjit Calay, Karen Ball, Donna Clow, Nanci Moore and Doris Rice and noted that each denied the particular allegations levied against them. Ms. Calay denied engaging in any clandestine visual surveillance of Ms. McDonald’s home; she did not even know where Ms. McDonald lived. Karen Ball, who Ms. McDonald thought would verify the existence of an investigation against Ms. McDonald, was unequivocal in her denial of any investigation or of being recruited by anyone to spy on Ms. McDonald. These allegations were also denied by Janette Smith and Donna Clow. Similarly, Nanci Moore denied being recruited to spy on Ms. McDonald. With respect to Diane Brown, another one of the witnesses who was summoned by Ms. McDonald, she denied ever telling Ms. McDonald that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating her.

[34] Accordingly, on the totality of the evidence concerning any investigation, Peel concluded that there was absolutely no evidentiary basis upon which a finding of fact could be made that the investigation allegations were true. On the contrary, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn was that there was no evidence of any investigation; it just did not occur.

[35] Regarding the various workplace allegations, here too Peel addressed each of Ms. McDonald’s complaints only to conclude that they were unfounded. In particular, for each of the allegations, Peel noted the following:

i. Sabotage allegation: Peel denied that it ever blamed Ms. McDonald for the difficulties that Peel Manor encounter with a new database that was introduced. It relied on explicit communications by Peel Manor that confirmed to Ms. McDonald that management did not consider Ms. McDonald to be the cause of the problem. Rather it explicitly acknowledged that the problem was the result of a software glitch described in a letter as “an error in our system.” As further evidence that Peel never raised any concerns that the problem was due to anything that Ms. McDonald did, Peel never undertook any disciplinary measures against her on account of the incident. The incident was never raised in her 2007 performance review. Finally, Ms. Moore testified that she never had any reason to suspect that Ms. McDonald tampered with the software deliberately; she understood that the problem was the result of a software issue.

ii. Insubordination allegation: This issue related to Ms. McDonald’s admitted failure to follow certain instructions. This was not in dispute. What Peel disputed was Ms. McDonald’s allegation that she was reprimanded in front of other unidentified employees. Although Ms. McDonald interpreted such a communication as implying that she was insubordinate, Ms. Moore denied that she confronted Ms. McDonald or that she was ever accusatory in the workplace. In any event, Ms. McDonald agreed that the issue was never brought up again and that it was also not raised in her 2007 performance evaluation.

iii. Adverse treatment or harassment in the workplace: Peel relied on the evidence of the various witnesses called by Ms. McDonald to support its position that Peel was highly responsive to any complaints or issues that Ms. McDonald raised. Peel submitted that Ms. McDonald enjoyed extraordinary latitude by her direct supervisors despite her combative behaviour in the workplace. Such latitude extended right to the arrangement of meetings with people such as Peel’s CFO, its CAO and the Commissioner of Health. There was simply no evidence of any adverse treatment against Ms. McDonald; the opposite was true. Peel employees would typically not have that kind of access to upper management.

iv. Hostility and Harassment: Peel noted that Ms. McDonald was unable to point to any objective evidence of hostility from her supervisors or from anyone else at Peel Manor. Apart from the outright denials of such allegations by all of the witnesses that Ms. McDonald summoned, Peel’s counsel noted that on Ms. McDonald’s own evidence she agreed that her evidence was based entirely on her subjective perception of other people’s gestures, their looks and their tone in their voice. Peel cautioned that such evidence was inherently unreliable in light of Dr. Woodside’s expert opinion that Ms. McDonald lacked insight into others’ intentions. Peel also noted that given Ms. McDonald’s allegation that she experienced hostility from every single one of her supervisors since 2001 and that she felt that the hostility “transferred” from one supervisor to the next, one had to look to a common denominator to explain such a phenomenon. Relying on Dr. Woodside’s testimony that delusional disorder is characterized by broad beliefs of persecution that incorporate a larger number of individuals than is reasonably possible, Peel submitted that the common denominator in Ms. McDonald’s allegation concerning all of her supervisors rested with her own difficulties with perception and not in anything that the supervisors did or said.

Apart from the numerous weaknesses in the evidence, Peel noted that Ms. McDonald’s actual examples of harassment could not possibly amount to harassment. They included Ms. McDonald’s complaints as follows: receiving e-mails without subject lines; being required to complete a PDF form instead of a soft copy of a document; being asked to stand and pay respect as a deceased resident was carried out of the home; the administration’s handling of the declaration of incompetency of a resident; the use of post-it notes on cheques with the effect that it obscured part of the value; the requirement that an administrator sign-off on cheques; and language barriers with financial analysts.

Finally, Peel noted that Ms. McDonald’s view of “conflict” meant that the other person refused to accede to her view on the way something ought to be done. Furthermore, Ms. McDonald described anyone addressing her as attempting to question her about an issue or a complaint, something that she viewed as fundamentally offensive. Peel concluded that Ms. McDonald’s perceptions did not amount to objective instances of any harassment by Peel management.

v. Workload Issues: Peel also rejected Ms. McDonald’s allegation that the compounding of her workload was a further manifestation of harassment. Peel submitted that Ms. McDonald may have found her workload difficult to manage but on the evidence before the court, that workload was neither abusive nor excessive. The evidence clearly demonstrated that Ms. McDonald worked regular working hours and she was not expected to take work home. Although she was offered to work overtime, she declined such opportunities.

Peel also noted that the contradictions in Ms. McDonald’s testimony were most pronounced. She complained about her workload but when new duties were taken away from her she was not happy and felt frustrated. Her evidence also suggested that at the root of her complaints over the “compounding” of her duties were her difficulties managing her workload. In this regard she refused offers of help or various resources.

In Peel’s view, Ms. McDonald’s view was not about the volume of work but rather about tasks she did not want to perform or the workplace being structured to her liking. Peel reviewed numerous examples to illustrate this point.

vi. Performance Reviews: Peel strongly disagreed with Ms. McDonald’s characterization of her performance reviews as being a “poor worker” or an “average employee.” The performance reviews consistently recorded ratings of “meets expectations” or “exceeds expectations.” Peel characterized the comments contained in the reviews as constructive feedback. The evidence on this issue, particularly from Ms. Moore, was that the performance reviews accurately reflected Ms. McDonald’s overall performance. She believed that she was highly responsive to Ms. McDonald’s concerns and in 2009 agreed to change certain comments to better address Ms. McDonald’s concerns. Peel pointed to Ms. McDonald’s allegations concerning the performance reviews and yet another example of the inherent unreliability of Ms. McDonald’s perception.

vii. Re-Organizational Transfer: Ms. McDonald’s complaint that she was denied advancement opportunities was unsupported by the evidence. First, Peel submitted that there is no such a thing as an ‘re-organizational transfer” and that such was entirely Ms. McDonald’s invention. Ms. Moore and Ms. Smith explained how Peel employees might change positions within Peel but that the only way to get a new job at Peel was to go through an application process. Peel submitted that as demonstrated by Ms. McDonald’s own evidence, Peel took Ms. McDonald’s requests seriously and facilitated meetings between her and individuals such as the CAO, the CFO, and the Commissioner of Health. Their objective was to be responsive to Ms. McDonald’s requests. Although her request for a position within Peel’s finance department was not granted, the letter advising her of that did not minimize her concerns and was not condescending. Rather, Ms. McDonald was provided with ideas on the types of steps she could take to improve her chances at securing a job in finance.

Peel underscored in its submissions Ms. McDonald’s admission in her cross-examination that she did not follow-up on those suggestions and that her submission that a cloud followed her on every job application was based on nothing more than her subjective suspicions. Peel also noted that in fact, Ms. McDonald admitted that she did not apply for any positions from 2004 until at least 2010 and that Ms. McDonald’s complaints were the result of her not being given her preferred job. Ms. McDonald simply did not want to go through an application process that would apply to every other Peel employee.

viii. Alleged Discipline: Peel considered these complaints to be unfounded. The letters that were in evidence were not disciplinary in nature. One of those letters cautioned Ms. McDonald against certain behaviours but it expressly noted that it was not disciplinary in nature. Peel also noted that there were no follow-up consequences to the letters or any sort of progressive discipline. Moreover, several of the witnesses who were called by Ms. McDonald confirmed that Ms. McDonald was never disciplined despite her repeated refusal to follow her supervisor’s directions.

[36] Peel concluded that nothing in its conduct could be taken to amount to harassment or support a finding of any intentional infliction of mental suffering. On the totality of the evidence before the court, there was no evidence to support a finding that Peel’s conduct was flagrant or outrageous, calculated to harm Ms. McDonald, or that Peel’s conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable illness. Peel further noted that the negligent infliction of mental suffering was not available in the employment context but that in any event, the evidence could not support such a finding. Peel also submitted that there was no evidence of any interference with economic relations. There was also no evidence of any invasion of privacy or intrusion upon seclusion. Finally, with respect to Ms. McDonald’s claim of negligence, she simply did not make out such a case.

[37] Apart from the complete and utter failure by Ms. McDonald to satisfy her onus to prove her various allegations and to prove that anything on the part of Peel’s conduct would entitle her to damages in fact or in law, Peel submitted that Ms. McDonald led no evidence whatsoever of any harm, loss or damages caused by Peel. Ms. McDonald never sought any treatment for her alleged PTSD symptoms. She never filed any harassment complaints even though Peel has a strong harassment policy, or taken any disability-related leaves of absence arising out of her allegations. She also had no pecuniary damages as there was no dispute that Ms. McDonald had not lost any income and that she had in fact worked continuously since 2001. Her claims of monetary loss were entirely speculative, subjective and unsubstantiated. Characteristic of the extent of her speculation was Ms. McDonald’s submission that, but for her difficulties at work, her son would have had an NHL career, the value of her home would have increased and that she might have even been able to start up a business.

[38] Based on all the foregoing, Peel submitted that the claim had to be dismissed in its entirety.

ANALYSIS

a. Preliminary Considerations and Observations

[39] Before I turn to my analysis of the evidence and my findings, I find it important to make some preliminary observations concerning this trial. From the very beginning the court was acutely aware that Ms. McDonald was seeking to advance some very difficult claims that had within them very serious allegations. Ms. McDonald was self-represented. Although it was evident that she worked very hard on her case and appeared to be all-consumed by its demands, she demonstrated on numerous occasions significant difficulties with the trial process, with the meaning of evidence and the difficulties with hearsay. Most significantly, Ms. McDonald appeared to have genuine trouble understanding that she could not simply advance allegations or even make highly prejudicial comments and expect the court to accept them in the absence of credible and reliable evidence.

[40] The court attempted to offer some initial guidance to Ms. McDonald to facilitate the efficient progress of the trial. When that raised the risk that the extent of the required guidance could jeopardize the integrity and impartiality of the trial process, the court assigned a trial management judge to the parties, who was there to give procedural guidance to the parties, but to Ms. McDonald in particular, and who acted pursuant to Rule 1.04(1) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194: see McDonald v. Regional Municipality of Peel, 2016 ONSC 3649.

[41] Insofar as the scope of the claim was concerned, it was evident that Ms. McDonald had difficulties appreciating the parameters of her own claim. She had to be redirected on numerous occasions to address the specific allegations contained in her claim and not anything that lay outside of the claim. At times, Ms. McDonald appeared to understand the distinction. On other occasions it was clear that she had difficulty disentangling her particular woes related to the claim from the broader challenges in her life. The only way to enable her to put her case before the court was to permit her to give her narrative and leave it to this court to distinguish between those allegations that related to her claim and those that were not. That being said, Ms. McDonald was prevented from advancing allegations against the operation of Peel Manor and individuals that were unrelated to her claim, that were highly prejudicial and lacked any probative value, and that were clearly designed to embarrass and humiliate particular individuals. By and large Ms. McDonald followed the court’s directive on this point though it was evident that she was not happy about such limitations.

[42] Ms. McDonald also had to be reminded that her Affidavit of Documents together with the documents that she produced in advance of the trial did not amount to evidence and that she could not turn over upwards of six volumes in documents and suggest that she satisfied her onus of proving her allegations. It was explained repeatedly that insofar as the documents were concerned, only those documents that were admitted into evidence and marked as exhibits would be part of her evidence. In her written closing submissions Ms. McDonald said she relied on her affidavits. This suggested to the court that Ms. McDonald may still not have understood the significance of proving and admitting documents into evidence and marking them as exhibits, or the distinction between what was admissible and what was not. In light of Ms. McDonald’s apparent and persisting confusion over the court’s engagement with the evidence, at the conclusion of the trial, the court returned to Ms. McDonald all documents that were not admitted as evidence and explained that they could not form part of the evidentiary record. To be clear, the court did not review or consider any documents contained in the volumes of productions that were not admitted into evidence.

[43] Finally, I expressly noted in the course of the trial that there were numerous difficulties with hearsay evidence and issues of admissibility. The challenge was complicated by the fact that Ms. McDonald was self-represented and had difficulty engaging with the objections raised by Peel. For its part, Peel took an exceptionally hard line on anything that Ms. McDonald tried to advance. At some point, following repeated objections, the court had to ask counsel for Peel to maintain a list of its objections and put them before the court at the conclusion of Ms. McDonald’s evidence in chief. The court had to take such an approach to allow Ms. McDonald to share her narrative in an efficient manner and to move her evidence along. Without counsel there to respond to Peel’s objections and with Ms. McDonald’s inability to articulate any response to the objections raised, the repeated objections became disruptive and impeded the court’s ability to understand the parameters and even the content of Ms. McDonald’s allegations. Regarding a number of documents that were clearly hearsay or self-serving narratives created by Ms. McDonald, the court had to review them to evaluate their admissibility and to identify any particular limits to the hearsay evidence. Where hearsay evidence was admitted, it was only for the purposes of understanding Ms. McDonald’s perspective and overall context and not for the truth of the contents.

b. Credibility of the Witnesses

[44] It became evident to this court that Ms. McDonald presented with a number of complicated and intertwined challenges in her life. Just as the trial was not an inquiry on all practices related to the management of Peel Manor, the trial was also not about all of Ms. McDonald’s problems or difficulties in her life and I therefore do not propose to address any of the issues that were not related to her claim. However, as a general observation, I do find that Ms. McDonald perceived the world to be against her, whether that related to her personal difficulties, her children’s difficulties, or her professional challenges. She also developed a narrative in her own mind which she believed to be true and which allowed her to blame her employment circumstances for all her woes. I also note that many of the witnesses she called to support her claim showed genuine concern and empathy for Ms. McDonald. That just underscored the profound contrast between Ms. McDonald’s perceptions of her situation and the reality. Ironically, her employment at Peel was the only source of stability, both professionally and financially and it is most unfortunate that Ms. McDonald could not appreciate that fact and the various individuals with whom she interacted.

[45] Given this context, the difficulties with Ms. McDonald’s testimony were not a matter of credibility in the sense that she intended to mislead the court or that she intentionally lied. Although some of Ms. McDonald’s claims were entirely implausible, the sad reality is that Ms. McDonald presented those allegations with conviction and confidence. In her mind they were true, even though she also admitted that she could not prove her allegations and that she based many of them on her perceptions.

[46] That being said, while Ms. McDonald did not set out to lie or to mislead the court, I cannot ignore the fact that there were numerous internal inconsistencies with Ms. McDonald’s testimony and that many of the incidents she described were implausible. In addition, I cannot ignore the fact that the overwhelming evidence before the court presented by the witnesses that Ms. McDonald called to support her case, was diametrically opposed to Ms. McDonald’s evidence. Their often spontaneous and stunned reaction to Ms. McDonald’s allegations only underscored the contrast between their respective evidence and what Ms. McDonald told the court.

[47] All of Ms. McDonald’s witnesses were credible, candid and forthright, and their evidence was both internally consistent and consistent with each other. I also that there was no evidence of any collusion among these witnesses or any evidence at all that the witnesses were even aware of the precise nature of the allegations in Ms. McDonald’s claims. In other words, the evidence from Ms. McDonald’s witnesses was not tainted in any way. This finding only added to their respective credibility.

[48] With respect to Dr. Woodside’s expert opinion concerning Ms. McDonald’s mental state, I found his evidence to be thorough, carefully considered and credible. Despite Ms. McDonald’s reservations over his report and his findings to the effect that he was inaccurate in his assessment and that he failed to consider all of her communications and concerns, Dr. Woodside’s explanations were well thought out and thorough. He withstood Ms. McDonald’s cross-examination and demonstrated significant patience with Ms. McDonald. He was gentle in his responses to her questions and did what he could to explain his conclusions concerning Ms. McDonald’s difficulties. At no time was he condescending or otherwise dismissive of the challenges that were put to him. He engaged with her questions respectfully and offered comprehensive explanations to them.

[49] Recognizing that there was no competing medical opinion to verify the precise nature of Ms. McDonald’s psychiatric disorder, I do not feel that I can make any finding on the precise psychiatric diagnosis for Ms. McDonald. Having accepted Dr. Woodside as a credible witness, I nonetheless am aware that experts may have varying views on specific causes of a problem and accordingly am reluctant to make such a finding. More significantly, I do not find it necessary to do so. However, I do accept Dr. Woodside’s conclusion that Ms. McDonald has a disorder that impairs her insight and causes her to misinterpret otherwise innocuous events as attempts to target her. That would explain many of the inconsistencies in her own testimony as well as the differences between her perception of events as compared to the perceptions of all her other witnesses. I also accept his evidence that such a condition would not be brought about by stress caused in the workplace, and furthermore that Ms. McDonald’s difficulties are not a manifestation of any PTSD.

c. Findings

[50] Turning then to the issues before the court, Ms. McDonald’s claims are essentially captured in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of her statement of claim. They give rise to three questions: i) Did Ms. McDonald establish that various individuals in management initiated a wrongful and vexatious course of conduct that was deleterious and harmful to her and that breached and violated her privacy? (The Investigation Allegations); ii) Did Ms. McDonald establish that the management at Peel Manor harassed her and accused her of insubordination intentionally so as to inflict mental distress and suffering? (The Workplace Allegations); and iii) Did Ms. McDonald suffer any damages from the alleged wrongs and if so what are those damages? My analysis follows.

i. The Investigation Allegations

[51] I find that Ms. McDonald failed to establish that the management at Peel Manor initiated a wrongful and vexatious course of conduct that was deleterious and harmful to her or that violated her privacy. I accept Peel’s submissions on this issue and make the following specific observations. Ms. McDonald’s narrative about being under surveillance by unknown individuals, to being investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police, the FBI and others, all at the behest of the management at Peel Manor and because of ostensible suspicions of an affair between Ms. McDonald and Peter Graham was entirely implausible, fantastic and extraordinary.

[52] Ms. McDonald’s description of the night she became intoxicated at a bar in Barrie and her suggestion that somebody from management dispatched an individual to track her down in Barrie and spike her drinks with “grain alcohol” so as to result in her arrest for driving under the influence epitomized the magnitude of Ms. McDonald’s troubles and flawed perception of her reality. The story was preposterous and lacked any air of reality. What it suggested to this court was that rather than take responsibility for her failings and difficulties, Ms. McDonald created a mythology to blame others for her shortcomings.

[53] Rather tragically, even Ms. McDonald admitted that she had no direct knowledge or evidence to support her allegations about the break-ins, about being spied on and about clandestine visual surveillance. In her testimony she spoke in the abstract about “they” but had no evidence of any particular individuals. The “they,” in Ms. McDonald’s mind, were individuals who were either dispatched by management or who were undercover police investigators but she agreed that she had no evidence to prove her allegations.

[54] The witnesses that Ms. McDonald called on to support her claim denied having any knowledge whatsoever about this claim and indeed were utterly surprised and dismayed by any suggestion that they were involved in any spying or clandestine visual surveillance. All of the witnesses were asked the following series of questions:

• Did you ever spy on Ms. McDonald in the workplace?
• Did you attempt to gather personal information about Ms. McDonald in the workplace?
• Did anyone ask you to gather personal information about Ms. McDonald?
• Did Janette Smith, Ranjit Calay, Karen Ball, Donna Clow, or Nanci Moore ask you to spy on Ms. McDonald?
• Did you ever suspect that there was an affair between Ms. McDonald and Peter Graham?
• Did you spread any rumours about the existence of such an affair?
• Were you asked to spread such a rumour?
• Did you stare at Ms. McDonald with hostility?
• Were you ever recruited to break into Ms. McDonald’s car?
• Were you asked to contact the police about Ms. McDonald?

[55] The answer to all these questions by the witnesses was an unequivocal “no.” In this, there was no hesitation, contradiction or other difficulty with the responses to cause the court to question their truthfulness. If anything, the disbelief that was embedded in their responses underscored Ms. McDonald’s incredibility.

[56] The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence before the court is that the surveillance and the spying alleged in paragraph 8 of Ms. McDonald’s claim did not occur. There was absolutely no evidentiary basis for the court to find that Ms. McDonald was under any investigation whatsoever.

ii. The Workplace Allegations

[57] On the totality of the evidence before the court, I am unable to find any basis for Ms. McDonald’s allegations that she was subjected to adverse treatment or harassment in the workplace. Here too, I accept Peel’s submissions and find specifically that Ms. McDonald was a difficult employee who did not like to take direction from her superiors, who did not like the re-organization that took place or the changes to her responsibilities and who essentially complained about management when she could not obtain a transfer without going through an application process. Quite critically, Ms. McDonald essentially admitted that she wanted a transfer to Peel’s finance department and it was only after that was refused that she commenced this claim. Ms. McDonald left the court with the distinct impression that had Peel acceded to her request for a transfer out of Peel Manor, she would not have commenced this claim.

[58] In contrast to her behaviour I find that management tolerated Ms. McDonald’s conduct more than others would have done. That extended as high up to granting Ms. McDonald meetings with very senior management at Peel including the CAO, the CFO and the Commissioner of Health. They all gave her guidance and suggested supports and resources for her to access. On her own admission Ms. McDonald did not follow up on any of those suggestions.

[59] With respect to her complaints about being accused of sabotage, of her alleged discipline, of her poor performance evaluations, about being harassed, and her various work assignments, they were simply unsupported by the evidence. Ms. Moore was clear that Ms. McDonald was never accused of any sabotage; the difficulties with the database in 2007 were the result of a software glitch and Ms. McDonald was never considered to be at any fault for that failing. Ms. Moore also gave extensive evidence about the performance reviews for Ms. McDonald. Nothing in those performance reviews suggested that Ms. McDonald was a poor employee or that she was having difficulties with her work obligations.

[60] On the issue of work assignments I accept Peel’s submission that at the root of Ms. McDonald’s complaints was her dissatisfaction with having to complete certain tasks. Ms. McDonald’s position that she was overworked was simply unfounded and contradicted by her own evidence. I accept that Ms. McDonald was frustrated by the changes to her duties over the course of the years but management and Peel Manor was not the source of that frustration. It was because things were not being done to her liking.

[61] I expressly reject Ms. McDonald’s explanation that her supervisor was not responsive to her concerns, or that the lack of response caused her stress because she did not feel she was able to perform her various tasks. There was no evidence to support that view. Ms. Moore may not have always had the management experience needed to respond to a challenging employee such as Ms. McDonald, but she did her best to be responsive. Moreover, even if the court were to find any shortcomings in Ms. Moore’s management style, it would not matter because Ms. McDonald went to the top management and was offered a full hearing. In this regard, the court was most grateful for Ms. Janette Smith’s testimony, as her evidence gave the court a full sense of the context and Peel’s handling of transfers, job changes and staff issues and concerns. The court was most impressed with Ms. Smith’s open-door policy and the personal attention she gave to Ms. McDonald.

[62] I also find that in none of the instances or difficulties described by Ms. McDonald did Peel act in a manner that was outrageous or flagrant. Nor was there any evidence whatsoever that Peel’s conduct was calculated to harm the plaintiff either physically or mentally. I query whether Peel’s management had sufficient experience to deal with as complex an individual as Ms. McDonald. While I make no finding on whether management should have been more direct with Ms. McDonald and perhaps not given her as much benefit of the doubt as they did, management certainly did not act in a way that was either negligent or deliberately designed to inflict any harm on Ms. McDonald. It did the opposite.

[63] Finally, there was no evidence that Peel caused Ms. McDonald to suffer a visible or provable illness. If anything, Peel tolerated Ms. McDonald’s combative behaviour, gave her the benefit of the doubt and did its best to be supportive. In this regard, not only did Peel meet its standard of care; it likely exceeded those obligations.

iii. Damages

[64] Given my findings on the first two issues, Ms. McDonald is not entitled to any damages whatsoever. That said, even if the court were wrong in its assessment of Ms. McDonald’s claim, Ms. McDonald led no evidence on the nature of her damages or the basis for claiming the sum of $5 million. Her allegations were speculative and unfounded. There is therefore no basis to make any such award.

CONCLUSION

[65] In light of the above findings, Ms. McDonald’s claim is dismissed in its entirety. I expect that Ms. McDonald will be far from pleased with this outcome. The court was concerned throughout the trial over the length of Ms. McDonald’s efforts to pursue her claim. Her perception and flawed insights were most unfortunate and harmful to her own well-being.

[66] The only outstanding issue relates to costs. If Peel is inclined to pursue such costs and is unable to reach a settlement with Ms. McDonald, Peel may make written submissions by July 10, 2017 and Ms. McDonald may respond by August 7, 2017. Such submissions shall in be limited to 3 pages double-spaced, in addition to a Bill of Costs and appropriate authorities.

Tzimas, J.

Released: June 14, 2017