The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld a Human Rights Tribuanl of Ontario(HRTO)finding of liability for racial profiling against the Toronto Police Service on March 13th, 2012. The case involved an African-Canadian Canada Post employee, Ronald Phipps, who was stopped and questioned while in full uniform and delivering mail by Police Constable Michael Shaw - a 30 year veteran - because he was suspicious and thought that Mr. Phipps may have been wearing the uniform as a disguise. Surprisingly, P.C. Shaw's superiors had instructed him to look out for white Eastern European men with a vehicle.
Lawyers representing the police argued, amongst other things, that the HRTO adjudicator arrived at her conclusion on discrimination based on "unconscious discrimination". According to police counsel this concept improperly imposes a burden of disproof on Constable Shaw. The Court of Appeal correctly rejected this argument. They said:
"However, this was not a case where the Adjudicator
concluded, without supporting evidence, that because
discrimination can be unconscious, Cst. Shaw
unconsciously discriminated against Mr. Phipps. Indeed,
the Adjudicator did not assume discrimination, but drew
an inference of discrimination from a number of different
pieces of evidence. As the Adjudicator observed, in any
event, proof of Cst. Shaw's subjective intention to
discriminate is not a ncesssary component of the test.
There is seldom direct evidence of a subjective intention
to discriminate, because "racial stereotyping will usually
be the result of subtle unconscious beliefs, biases and
prejudices" and racial discrimination "often operates on an
unconscious level."
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
I have never seen an African-Canadian firefighter in Canada !: Impediments to equality in recruitment
After reading about the recent U.S. District Court ruling finding the New York City Fire Department liable for discriminating against African-American and Latino-American job applicants, it forced me to reflect on the situation in Toronto. Toronto is often touted as one of the most diverse cities in the world. Policy makers are always quick to suggest that Toronto is a model for the world in that everyone gets along so well here. This is far from the reality of life for the vast majority of African-Canadian and other non-whites in the Toronto area.
My observations lead me to conclude that our policy makers are seriously out of touch with the problem of rampant discrimination and inequality in public employment such as the police service, fire department, para-medic service, school board and the WSIB. I - for one - have never seen an African-Canadian firefighter in Toronto. This in my mind suggests a serious and fundamental flaw in their recruiting practices. I lived in Berkely, California for a period of time and during this time the Chief of their fire department was a 47 year old African-American woman. At the same time the Police Chief in San Francisco was an Asian-American woman - who incidentally had replaced an African-American man. Policy makers in Toronto can say what they wish but it is clear that the bulk of the jobs in the areas delineated above are somehow reserved for the following groups in this city: British, Scottish, Irish, German and Italian.
Policy makers who are serious about addressing this very serious problem in the Metropolitan Toronto area need to stop talking and need to start taking decisive and positive steps to eradicate the causes of this discriminaiton and inequality. They need to move away from their defensive posture of "We are not racist". The debate over intentional and adverse-impact discrimination was put to rest in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (USSC) and this principle was accepted by all Canadian courts and tribunals . Although the issue is no longer about establishing the perpetrator's motive for their acts and omissions in establishing discriminatory practices - especially in hiring - you would never know that from listening to policy-makers. "We are not racist" and "They are not applying" are two common explanations for the problem.
As a lawyer representing victims of discrimination in Toronto, it is clear to me that all job applicants are not equal in the employer's eyes. "Outsiders" or those who do not have an inside connection to the place of employment do not get the same level of attention as those with a parent, relative or friend who can attest to their status as a "good guy or gal". Up until very recently this was the main recruitment tool for City of Toronto employment. If a father was a police officer his son or daughter was almost guranteed a job in the police force or elsewhere in the City. While the recruitment pool of candidates has been increased today this "insider" "outsider" factor continues to impeade the goal of equality in the recruitment process. A drink at the pub with the "insider" traditionally sealed the deal and there is nothing that the "outsider" could do to trump this. If there was an exam the "insider" would get full particulars on the exam and what to say. The "outsider" without this "knowledge" would always fail. Of course the bargaining agents would be a part of this "insider" culture so grievances on this issue do not go anywhere.
There are a number of other impediments to equality in public sector recruitment. I will make an effort to address them in anoter post !
NOTE: This piece is written for the sole purpose of drawing attention and discussion to an issue of public importance - the exclusion of the majority of the Metropolitan Toronto area's population base from well-paying public sector jobs.
My observations lead me to conclude that our policy makers are seriously out of touch with the problem of rampant discrimination and inequality in public employment such as the police service, fire department, para-medic service, school board and the WSIB. I - for one - have never seen an African-Canadian firefighter in Toronto. This in my mind suggests a serious and fundamental flaw in their recruiting practices. I lived in Berkely, California for a period of time and during this time the Chief of their fire department was a 47 year old African-American woman. At the same time the Police Chief in San Francisco was an Asian-American woman - who incidentally had replaced an African-American man. Policy makers in Toronto can say what they wish but it is clear that the bulk of the jobs in the areas delineated above are somehow reserved for the following groups in this city: British, Scottish, Irish, German and Italian.
Policy makers who are serious about addressing this very serious problem in the Metropolitan Toronto area need to stop talking and need to start taking decisive and positive steps to eradicate the causes of this discriminaiton and inequality. They need to move away from their defensive posture of "We are not racist". The debate over intentional and adverse-impact discrimination was put to rest in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (USSC) and this principle was accepted by all Canadian courts and tribunals . Although the issue is no longer about establishing the perpetrator's motive for their acts and omissions in establishing discriminatory practices - especially in hiring - you would never know that from listening to policy-makers. "We are not racist" and "They are not applying" are two common explanations for the problem.
As a lawyer representing victims of discrimination in Toronto, it is clear to me that all job applicants are not equal in the employer's eyes. "Outsiders" or those who do not have an inside connection to the place of employment do not get the same level of attention as those with a parent, relative or friend who can attest to their status as a "good guy or gal". Up until very recently this was the main recruitment tool for City of Toronto employment. If a father was a police officer his son or daughter was almost guranteed a job in the police force or elsewhere in the City. While the recruitment pool of candidates has been increased today this "insider" "outsider" factor continues to impeade the goal of equality in the recruitment process. A drink at the pub with the "insider" traditionally sealed the deal and there is nothing that the "outsider" could do to trump this. If there was an exam the "insider" would get full particulars on the exam and what to say. The "outsider" without this "knowledge" would always fail. Of course the bargaining agents would be a part of this "insider" culture so grievances on this issue do not go anywhere.
There are a number of other impediments to equality in public sector recruitment. I will make an effort to address them in anoter post !
NOTE: This piece is written for the sole purpose of drawing attention and discussion to an issue of public importance - the exclusion of the majority of the Metropolitan Toronto area's population base from well-paying public sector jobs.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
HRTO's Silence on Racial Profiling JR Application Speaks Volumes !
I could not believe my eyes when I read the Divisional Court's ruling in Pieters v. Peel Law Association. The Divisional Court ruling states that the HRTO took no position on the application proper other than to request that if the application is allowed that it be heard by a new panel. This is an odd move indeed. In my close to twenty years I have yet to come across a tribunal like the HRTO taking such a position. Normally tribunals strenuously support their decisions. During my articles of clerkship with the Ontario Labour Relations Board I took great pleasure in watching the likes of current Justice of Appeal Stephen Goudge and Mr. Chris Paliare forcefully advocate on behalf of the OLRB at the Divisional Court.
As a lawyer who is interested in the rule of law, fairness and human rights in Ontario I am troubled by the HRTO's failure to make submissions in support of the Tribunal's decision before the Divisional Court. I wonder whether the fact that the decision involved the controverial issue of racial profiling and the legal profession caused this unusual position. If this is the case then surely the HRTO has failed to live up to its objective. If this is the case it sends a very loud message to the community of respondents - employers - service providers and the like that human rights in Ontario are not quasi-constitutional rights as the Supreme Court of Canada often refers to them. I leave you with this. The HRTO's refusal to make submissions before the Divisional Court on a racial profiling case which their tribunal upheld is like the OLRB finding that Walmart committed an unfair labour practice under the Labour Relations Act by firing 10 union supporters and then appearing before the Divisional Court and not making submissions in support of their decision. It is unusual beyond belief.
Note: This piece is written for the sole purpose of drawing public attention to an issue of public importance - namely - the operation of the HRTO and the respect for human rights in Ontario.
As a lawyer who is interested in the rule of law, fairness and human rights in Ontario I am troubled by the HRTO's failure to make submissions in support of the Tribunal's decision before the Divisional Court. I wonder whether the fact that the decision involved the controverial issue of racial profiling and the legal profession caused this unusual position. If this is the case then surely the HRTO has failed to live up to its objective. If this is the case it sends a very loud message to the community of respondents - employers - service providers and the like that human rights in Ontario are not quasi-constitutional rights as the Supreme Court of Canada often refers to them. I leave you with this. The HRTO's refusal to make submissions before the Divisional Court on a racial profiling case which their tribunal upheld is like the OLRB finding that Walmart committed an unfair labour practice under the Labour Relations Act by firing 10 union supporters and then appearing before the Divisional Court and not making submissions in support of their decision. It is unusual beyond belief.
Note: This piece is written for the sole purpose of drawing public attention to an issue of public importance - namely - the operation of the HRTO and the respect for human rights in Ontario.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Pieters v. Peel Law Association: Is it a vase, two faces or bad law ?
The Divisional Court's ruling in Pieters v. Peel Law Association 2012 ONSC 1048 brought back vivid memories of Professor Bill Bogart's animated and profound lectures at the University of Windsor on the subject of the superior court's supervisory function over inferior tribunals. On the question of the level of deference to be afforded inferior tribunals Professor Bogart would state, "is it a vase or two faces ?" in an effort to communicate the patent lack of consistency post Cupe Local 963 v. New Brunswich Liquor Corp. [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227. The lesson which I understood from those lectures and the post Cupe (supra) jurisprudence on the question of the standard of review and level of deference which inferiror tribunals will receive under judicial review is that the process is far from being logically predictable and like the concept of beauty it remains largely in the eyes of the beholder.
The Divisional court's ruling in Pieters supra provides a splendid example of the "vase and two faces" aspect inherent in judicial review of adminstrative tribunals. On the one hand factual decisions of the Tribunal going to the determination of whether there has been discrimination under the Code are supposed to be afforded "a high degree of deference".(see Audmax v. OHRT 2011 ONSC 315 and Shaw v. Phipps 2010 ONSC 3844) On the other hand, decisions of the Tribunal are required "to be rationally supported and to fall within a range of possible, acceptable outomes that are defensible in fact and law." (Audmax supra)
In Pieters a lawyer of African-Canadian racial background alleged that the Peel Law Association and its librarian violated his rights under the Code to be free from discrimination on the basis of race when she approached him in the lawyer's lounge which they opperate at the Brampton Court House and asked him to identify himself. Following a three-day hearing the Tribunal found the librarian had violated Mr. Pieter's rights under the Code. The Peel Law Association sought judicial review of this decision on the basis that the Tribunal erred by unreasonably determining that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established.
The Divisional Court went on to grant the Peel Law Association an order quashing the Tribunal's decision, an order substituting a decision dismissing the applications before the HRTO and an order of costs against the respondents in the sum of $20,000. The relevant portions of the court's analysis in support of this conclusion are found at pages 6-10 of their decision. A review of their decision shows that the court decided to overturn the Tribunal nothwithstanding the fact that the alleged errors are findings of fact clearly within the ambit of the "high degree of deference" the Tribunal is traditionally afforded.
The rationale provided by the court for what appears to me to be a departure from precedent is rooted in the court's improper application of two leading cases involving adverse impact discrimination as distinct from direct discrimination which was involved in Pieters. The Divisional Court relied on Ontario Director, Disability Support Program v. Tranchemontagne, 2010 ONCA 593 and McGill University Health Centre v. Syndicat des employes de L'Hopital General de Montreal 2007 S.C.C. 4 and went on to charcterize the issues before the Tribunal and the court in the following words:
"The key issues that fall under this heading are whether the
complainants established a distinction or differential treatment
and if so whether they demonstrated a causal nexus between their
race and the disadvantage they claimed to have suffered, on a
balance of probabilities." (at paragraph 20)
In order to illustrate the error of law committed by the Divisional Court in Pieters it is necessary to make some reference to the two cases on which the court relies upon. The important point of distinction is that both of those cases involved adverse impact discrimination and not direct discrimination. Ontario Disability Support Program v. Tranchemontagne supra involved a claim by two alcoholic men who were denied disability benefits under s.5(2) Ontario Disability Support Program Act 1997 S.O. 1997 c. 25 Sched B. That section of the subject legislation disqualified the complainants from eligibility because of their dependence on alcohol. The effect of this denial was to deny the complainants disability benefits - which paid $959 per month and provide them instead with welfare under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 which provided them with a mere $423 per month. The McGill case involved an employer's duty to accommodate where a grievor is unable to return to work in accordance with a collective agreement mandated time frame. A careful reading of those two authorities suggests that the Divisional Court's holding in Pieters requiring "a causal nexus between the arbitrary distinction based on a prohibited ground and the disadvantage suffered" is limited to adverse impact discrimination cases and not direct discrimination cases like Pieters supra.
NOTE: This piece is written for the sole purpose of drawing attention to an issue of public importance, namely, the level of judicial deference that administrative tribunals are permitted in law and the proper evolution of human rights jurisprudence in Ontario.
The Divisional court's ruling in Pieters supra provides a splendid example of the "vase and two faces" aspect inherent in judicial review of adminstrative tribunals. On the one hand factual decisions of the Tribunal going to the determination of whether there has been discrimination under the Code are supposed to be afforded "a high degree of deference".(see Audmax v. OHRT 2011 ONSC 315 and Shaw v. Phipps 2010 ONSC 3844) On the other hand, decisions of the Tribunal are required "to be rationally supported and to fall within a range of possible, acceptable outomes that are defensible in fact and law." (Audmax supra)
In Pieters a lawyer of African-Canadian racial background alleged that the Peel Law Association and its librarian violated his rights under the Code to be free from discrimination on the basis of race when she approached him in the lawyer's lounge which they opperate at the Brampton Court House and asked him to identify himself. Following a three-day hearing the Tribunal found the librarian had violated Mr. Pieter's rights under the Code. The Peel Law Association sought judicial review of this decision on the basis that the Tribunal erred by unreasonably determining that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established.
The Divisional Court went on to grant the Peel Law Association an order quashing the Tribunal's decision, an order substituting a decision dismissing the applications before the HRTO and an order of costs against the respondents in the sum of $20,000. The relevant portions of the court's analysis in support of this conclusion are found at pages 6-10 of their decision. A review of their decision shows that the court decided to overturn the Tribunal nothwithstanding the fact that the alleged errors are findings of fact clearly within the ambit of the "high degree of deference" the Tribunal is traditionally afforded.
The rationale provided by the court for what appears to me to be a departure from precedent is rooted in the court's improper application of two leading cases involving adverse impact discrimination as distinct from direct discrimination which was involved in Pieters. The Divisional Court relied on Ontario Director, Disability Support Program v. Tranchemontagne, 2010 ONCA 593 and McGill University Health Centre v. Syndicat des employes de L'Hopital General de Montreal 2007 S.C.C. 4 and went on to charcterize the issues before the Tribunal and the court in the following words:
"The key issues that fall under this heading are whether the
complainants established a distinction or differential treatment
and if so whether they demonstrated a causal nexus between their
race and the disadvantage they claimed to have suffered, on a
balance of probabilities." (at paragraph 20)
In order to illustrate the error of law committed by the Divisional Court in Pieters it is necessary to make some reference to the two cases on which the court relies upon. The important point of distinction is that both of those cases involved adverse impact discrimination and not direct discrimination. Ontario Disability Support Program v. Tranchemontagne supra involved a claim by two alcoholic men who were denied disability benefits under s.5(2) Ontario Disability Support Program Act 1997 S.O. 1997 c. 25 Sched B. That section of the subject legislation disqualified the complainants from eligibility because of their dependence on alcohol. The effect of this denial was to deny the complainants disability benefits - which paid $959 per month and provide them instead with welfare under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 which provided them with a mere $423 per month. The McGill case involved an employer's duty to accommodate where a grievor is unable to return to work in accordance with a collective agreement mandated time frame. A careful reading of those two authorities suggests that the Divisional Court's holding in Pieters requiring "a causal nexus between the arbitrary distinction based on a prohibited ground and the disadvantage suffered" is limited to adverse impact discrimination cases and not direct discrimination cases like Pieters supra.
NOTE: This piece is written for the sole purpose of drawing attention to an issue of public importance, namely, the level of judicial deference that administrative tribunals are permitted in law and the proper evolution of human rights jurisprudence in Ontario.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Thoughts on the "corporate support" of Black History Month
In this highly competitive business world organizations both for profit or otherwise have come to recognize that they need all the business they can get and that embracing Black History Month makes good business sense. While this tactic may be beneficial to the the business organizations and the like I question whether - in the case of African-Americans and Canadians - such corporate support advances the objective that Black History Month sought to address.
As I understand it Black History Month was intended to educate the mainstream on the historical experience, accomplishments and contributions of people of African descent to society. The logic I see in this laudable goal is that in doing so the mainstream may come to understand the unique history of struggle, resistance and creativity of people of African descent. This educational process tends to break down barriers and bring about understanding and respect.
Much more remarkable than the contributions of people of African descent in North America and indeed worldwide is that they were able to succeed notwithstanding the hostile and oppressive conditions which were imposed upon them by the mainstream. Indeed, this is probably the most significant message that Black History Month ought to convey to the mainstream. It is a message which most of the corporate sponsors prefer to candycoat or simply avoid. The corporate sponsors of Black History Month appear more interested in Black History Month as a vehicle to increase market share than to educate and change perceptions. My dad always said, "all that glitters is not gold !"
As I understand it Black History Month was intended to educate the mainstream on the historical experience, accomplishments and contributions of people of African descent to society. The logic I see in this laudable goal is that in doing so the mainstream may come to understand the unique history of struggle, resistance and creativity of people of African descent. This educational process tends to break down barriers and bring about understanding and respect.
Much more remarkable than the contributions of people of African descent in North America and indeed worldwide is that they were able to succeed notwithstanding the hostile and oppressive conditions which were imposed upon them by the mainstream. Indeed, this is probably the most significant message that Black History Month ought to convey to the mainstream. It is a message which most of the corporate sponsors prefer to candycoat or simply avoid. The corporate sponsors of Black History Month appear more interested in Black History Month as a vehicle to increase market share than to educate and change perceptions. My dad always said, "all that glitters is not gold !"
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Punitive Damages Sought Against Future Shop/Best Buy
A top-performing General Manager was a model employee until on or about November 9th, 2006 when he was summarily dismissed from his position at Best Buy Canada Limited's (a.k.a Future Shop) flagship store in Newmarket, Ontario. His statement of claim issued in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the defendant asserts that he was "summarily and in bad faith terminated...under a cloud of false allegations of sexually harassing three female employees and allegedly failing to abide by the company's policy on this subject matter."
The former employee's claim against Best Buy asserts a significant legal point, namely, an employer's duty in negligence to investigate when dealing with sexual harassment allegations pursuant to their own policies and their potential liability for punitive damages for such failure to act.
Negligence:
The statement of claim states, "The Plaintiff pleads that the defendant employer owed him a duty of care in the circumstances to carry out a fair, thorough and impartial investigation of the allegations against him before condemning him and summarily dismissing on the grounds which they alleged, namely, sexual harassment and breach of the company policy and trust."
In essence the Plaintiff is asserting that since Future Shop/Best Buy had a policy on sexual harassment that prohibited such conduct in the work place along with a corresponding potential penalty of dimissal that they had a duty in negligence to conduct a fair, thorough and impartial investigation and failed to do so.
Breach of Duty:
The former General Manager's statement of claim "asserts that the defendant breached the duty of care owed to him by virtue of the following acts and omissions:
1. Failed to articulate or implement a policy or directive on the
conduct of the investigation of sexual harassment allegations
in their work place;
2. Failed to provide adequate training for its workers whe are
responsible for the implementation of the policy;
3. Failed to establish or implement criteria to test credibility
and reliability of interview results;
4. Failed to record investigation interviews;
5. Failed to take statements under oath or penalty of perjury;
6. Failed to follow the principle of natural justice in their
investigation;
7. Failed to follow and live up to its own written policies.
Punitive Damages:
In support of his claim for punitive damages the plaintiff asserts in his statement of claim that Best Buy lacked "a fair and impartial mode of investigation to ascertain reliability or truthfulness of alleged violations" and made "a conscious and deliberate decision that it was more efficient to simply dismiss individuals accused of breach of their policy than to provide a mechanism for a fair and impartial investigain of the allegations".
Defence:
"Future Shop denies the allegations in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of Claim that it failed to carry out a thorough, fair and impartial investigation into the sexual harassment allegations brought against the Plaintiff."
"Best Buy denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and or aggravated damages and submits that this claim is without foundation."
Trial:
The claims advanced by the former employee and the defences asserted by the defendant have yet to be adjudged by a court. It is anticipated that the matter will be tried in the Ontaro Superior Court Justice on October 8th, 2012 in Toronto.
Witnesses sought:
I wish to speak to individuals having specific knowledge on the following points in preparation for the upcoming trial:
1. Former District Manager, Mr. John Amendola and former human resources manager, Ms. Olga Afinec conducted the sexual harassment investigation which led to the Plaintiff's dismissal. Anyone having any information of their whereabouts is asked to contact me as soon as possible or have them contact me;
2. Mr. Fadi Azziz is said to have communicated the complaint to managment. Anyone having any information of his whereabout is asked to contact me as soon as possible or have him contact me;
3. Anyone who worked at Future Shop (Newmarket)in an around November,2006
and has personal knowledge of the harassment allegations and dismissal; and
4. Anyone who has been dismissed in similar circumstances to the Plaintiff by Future Shop/Best Buy and denied payment of entitlement under their Share-Ownership Plan.
*Note: The claim in question involves Court File No.CV-10-003944690000
Persons with information are invited to contact Ernest J. Guiste at (416) 364-8908 or by e mail - ejguiste.rightslawyer@gmail.com.
The former employee's claim against Best Buy asserts a significant legal point, namely, an employer's duty in negligence to investigate when dealing with sexual harassment allegations pursuant to their own policies and their potential liability for punitive damages for such failure to act.
Negligence:
The statement of claim states, "The Plaintiff pleads that the defendant employer owed him a duty of care in the circumstances to carry out a fair, thorough and impartial investigation of the allegations against him before condemning him and summarily dismissing on the grounds which they alleged, namely, sexual harassment and breach of the company policy and trust."
In essence the Plaintiff is asserting that since Future Shop/Best Buy had a policy on sexual harassment that prohibited such conduct in the work place along with a corresponding potential penalty of dimissal that they had a duty in negligence to conduct a fair, thorough and impartial investigation and failed to do so.
Breach of Duty:
The former General Manager's statement of claim "asserts that the defendant breached the duty of care owed to him by virtue of the following acts and omissions:
1. Failed to articulate or implement a policy or directive on the
conduct of the investigation of sexual harassment allegations
in their work place;
2. Failed to provide adequate training for its workers whe are
responsible for the implementation of the policy;
3. Failed to establish or implement criteria to test credibility
and reliability of interview results;
4. Failed to record investigation interviews;
5. Failed to take statements under oath or penalty of perjury;
6. Failed to follow the principle of natural justice in their
investigation;
7. Failed to follow and live up to its own written policies.
Punitive Damages:
In support of his claim for punitive damages the plaintiff asserts in his statement of claim that Best Buy lacked "a fair and impartial mode of investigation to ascertain reliability or truthfulness of alleged violations" and made "a conscious and deliberate decision that it was more efficient to simply dismiss individuals accused of breach of their policy than to provide a mechanism for a fair and impartial investigain of the allegations".
Defence:
"Future Shop denies the allegations in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of Claim that it failed to carry out a thorough, fair and impartial investigation into the sexual harassment allegations brought against the Plaintiff."
"Best Buy denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and or aggravated damages and submits that this claim is without foundation."
Trial:
The claims advanced by the former employee and the defences asserted by the defendant have yet to be adjudged by a court. It is anticipated that the matter will be tried in the Ontaro Superior Court Justice on October 8th, 2012 in Toronto.
Witnesses sought:
I wish to speak to individuals having specific knowledge on the following points in preparation for the upcoming trial:
1. Former District Manager, Mr. John Amendola and former human resources manager, Ms. Olga Afinec conducted the sexual harassment investigation which led to the Plaintiff's dismissal. Anyone having any information of their whereabouts is asked to contact me as soon as possible or have them contact me;
2. Mr. Fadi Azziz is said to have communicated the complaint to managment. Anyone having any information of his whereabout is asked to contact me as soon as possible or have him contact me;
3. Anyone who worked at Future Shop (Newmarket)in an around November,2006
and has personal knowledge of the harassment allegations and dismissal; and
4. Anyone who has been dismissed in similar circumstances to the Plaintiff by Future Shop/Best Buy and denied payment of entitlement under their Share-Ownership Plan.
*Note: The claim in question involves Court File No.CV-10-003944690000
Persons with information are invited to contact Ernest J. Guiste at (416) 364-8908 or by e mail - ejguiste.rightslawyer@gmail.com.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
JUSTICE KARAKATSANIS - A SOUND CHOICE FOR SUPREME COURT
Madame Justice Karakatsanis of the Court of Appeal for Ontario is an excellent choice for appointment to the nation's highest court. I do not know her personally but I had the pleasure of arguing two cases before her - one a medical malpractice on a question of law motion brought by the defendant doctor and the other an application on a guns and gangs prosecution styled "Operation Flicker". On each occasion I was impressed by her ability to zero-in on the crux of the legal problem, her ability to ensure that counsel understood the point and to insert common-sense and compassion in her adjudication process.
In the medical malpractice matter I acted for the plaintiff who brought an action against a doctor and a hospital for breach of confidence and negligence based on the doctor's improper disclosure of the nature and type of medical procedures which the plaintiff underwent. Counsel for the defendant doctor brought a motion on the premise that since the doctor was not the plaintiff's doctor he owed her no duty of care and hence the plaintiff had no claim. Justice Karakatsanis pointed out that the action is based both in negligence and breach of confidence. She politely asked counsel for the doctor, "Are you suggesting to me that if I had surgery at TEGH and your client - a surgeon - found out what I had that he could tell the whole word because I do not have a doctor-patient relationship with him ?" Counsel for the doctor replied yes. Justice Karakatsanis proceeded to dismiss the doctor's motion with costs. No appeal was taken by the doctor.
In the guns and gangs case I was acting for an alleged gang member whom the immigration authorities and the Crown sought to deport to his homeland followng the proceedings. I brought an application before Justice Karakatsanis seeking a stay of the proceedings based on the Crown's improper disclosure of sensitive and confidential information regarding the client which had the potential to put his life at risk should he be deported to his homeland. Once again, Justice Karakatsanis recognized the seriousness of the issue, listened attentively to evidence I led in support of the application and fashioned a unique and pragmatic remedy. Althought she dismissed my application for a stay of proceedings she wrote a strong and comprehensive judgement in which she specifically recommended that the immigration authorities refrain from deporting my client.
In the medical malpractice matter I acted for the plaintiff who brought an action against a doctor and a hospital for breach of confidence and negligence based on the doctor's improper disclosure of the nature and type of medical procedures which the plaintiff underwent. Counsel for the defendant doctor brought a motion on the premise that since the doctor was not the plaintiff's doctor he owed her no duty of care and hence the plaintiff had no claim. Justice Karakatsanis pointed out that the action is based both in negligence and breach of confidence. She politely asked counsel for the doctor, "Are you suggesting to me that if I had surgery at TEGH and your client - a surgeon - found out what I had that he could tell the whole word because I do not have a doctor-patient relationship with him ?" Counsel for the doctor replied yes. Justice Karakatsanis proceeded to dismiss the doctor's motion with costs. No appeal was taken by the doctor.
In the guns and gangs case I was acting for an alleged gang member whom the immigration authorities and the Crown sought to deport to his homeland followng the proceedings. I brought an application before Justice Karakatsanis seeking a stay of the proceedings based on the Crown's improper disclosure of sensitive and confidential information regarding the client which had the potential to put his life at risk should he be deported to his homeland. Once again, Justice Karakatsanis recognized the seriousness of the issue, listened attentively to evidence I led in support of the application and fashioned a unique and pragmatic remedy. Althought she dismissed my application for a stay of proceedings she wrote a strong and comprehensive judgement in which she specifically recommended that the immigration authorities refrain from deporting my client.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)