The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-1093.Morissette.21-02-22 DecisionCrown Employees Grievance Settlement Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission de règlement des griefs des employés de la Couronne Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) 326-1388 Téléc. : (416) 326-1396 GSB# 2014-1093, 2014-2928, 2014-2929, 2014-4685 UNION# 2014-0230-0010; 2014-0230-0045; 2014-0230-0046; 2011-0230-0017 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD BETWEEN Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Morissette) Union - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (The Ministry of Transportation) Employer BEFORE Randi H. Abramsky Arbitrator FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER Christopher Bryden Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel Jonathan Rabinovitch Treasury Board Secretariat Labour Practice Group Counsel HEARING DATES October 29, 2020 (via teleconference call); November 1, 2020; January 19, 2021 - 2 - Decision [1] By agreement of the parties, this decision is non-precedential and may not be relied upon in any other case. Background [2] The parties proceeded in an unusual way – through a “will-say” statement by the Grievor which was not subject to cross-examination, and a “will-say” statement by the former Regional Manager, Western Region, Theo Mastorakos, which was also not subject to cross-examination. No other evidence was called. Attached to both will-say statements were documents. In the Grievor’s case, in addition to her 78 page will-say with 1134 paragraphs, there were seven volumes of documents consisting of 532 exhibits. With Mr. Mastorakos’ will-say statement, which consisted of 19 pages, there was one document attached. A. The Grievances [3] There are four grievances before me in this case: I. November 15, 2011 – Grievance 2014-0230-0017, GSB#2014-4685 This grievance alleges that the Grievor has “been subjected to a poisoned work environment” in violation of Article 3, the Ontario Human Rights Code; that “[h]arrassment and discrimination has taken place and was not address[ed] appropriately by management” and that she “was reprised against by threats for management for raising allegation[s] of the above 3 violations…” II. May 27, 2014 – Grievance 2014-0230-0010, GSB#2014-1093 This grievance alleges “the Employer has discriminated against me by failing to follow the OPS Return to Work Policy, Health Reassignment Process, which is in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Collective agreement, the Ontario Human Rights Code, the OPS Health Reassignment, Employment Accommodation and Return to Work Policies.” III. September 18, 2014 – Grievance 2014-0230-0045, GSB#2014-2928 This grievance alleges that “the employer continues to subject me to harassment, causing me stress and anxiety, which is in violation of articles 2, 3, 9 and any other articles of the Collective Agreement, the Occupational Health and Safety Act” and any other statute or articles deemed applicable. According to the Union, this also involves a claim for non-payment of expenses in relation to an Independent Medical Exam (IME) requested by the Employer. IV. September 29, 2014 – Grievance 2014-0230-0046, GSB#2014-2929 This grievance alleges that “the Employer continues to cause me extreme stress and anxiety by failing to initiate the IME in a timely fashion and their lack of cooperation and interference with the IME process, putting into question the - 3 - authenticity of the IME, which are in violation of articles 2, 3, 9“ and any other applicable provision, policy or legislation. B. The Grievor’s Background Prior to the Ministry of Transportation [4] The Grievor began her employment with the Ontario public service in 1994, with the Ministry of Revenue (later changed to the Ministry of Finance (MOF), as a bilingual Tax Roll Administrator for the Employer Health Tax department. The Grievor is French-Canadian, and her native language is French. [5] In her will-say, the Grievor recounts very significant difficulties she had there, beginning in the mid-1990s. She states at para. 19: “My reason for starting my Will-Say in 1994 is to demonstrate a continuing course of action intending to cause stress and anxiety with their apparent end result of constructive dismissal …” [6] Her will-say outlines – literally pages and pages – of co-worker harassment and discrimination at the MOF, condonation and abetting by management, including physical assaults. She states, at para. 30, that in 1996, “the first physical assault occurred” and “what soon followed were harassment, torture, racial discrimination and discrimination against me because of my disability.” She believes, as stated at para. 37: “I believe that my story may be the most serious claim of harassment, abuse, torture, racial discrimination, and discrimination against people with disabilities in a government workplace in Canada. …” [7] The Grievor switched offices within the MOF (from Brantford to Kitchener), and she “moved to Kitchener to prevent any further interactions with prior coworkers.” But she “eventually experienced a similar behavior from the Kitchener office manager and a co-worker…” Subsequently, she went off on sick leave. An initial IME in 2008 led to a determination of disability and the Grievor received LTIP (long- term income protection).1 In early 2010, a second IME determined that she could return to work but in a different Ministry – which led to the Grievor’s participation in the Health Reassignment process. C. The Grievor’s Health Reassignment to the Ministry of Transportation [8] Through the Health Reassignment process, the Grievor was assigned to the position of General Information Clerk (GIC), International Registration Plan (IRP) at the Waterloo office of the Ministry of Transportation (MOT), starting on June 14, 2010. That position involves processing a variety of driver and vehicle transactions related to the IRP and other vehicle licensing programs, by responding to a high volume of in-person and telephone or written inquiries from the public and various client groups. The position works “under the general supervision of a Group Leader…” [9] It is also clear, from her diary as well as other documentation (emails she sent), that her experiences at the MOF influenced her view of events at her new position 1 Due to the sensitive nature of the medical evidence in this case, I inquired whether the Grievor would like to have this decision anonymized. She declined. I decided, on my own initiative, to anonymize two of the individuals that the Grievor alleged harassed her – the Team Lead and a Driver Improvement Counsellor (DIC) – and the two local managers. - 4 - at the MOT. There were no medical restrictions attached to the Grievor’s performance of the GIC position. Management was aware that this was a Health Reassignment, but was not made aware of the basis for it. Mr. Mastorakos states in his will-say, at para. 15: “I never contacted anyone at the Ministry of Finance to discuss the Grievor’s former grievances, her personal information, or her previous roles/duties while working at the Ministry of Finance.” [10] Initially, the Grievor was happy and hopeful about this reassignment. The job was located at the same office that the Grievor’s husband worked. She stated at para. 91: This meant for me an end to the discrimination and harassment, so I thought. I was very optimistic and hopeful to be starting this new job. I felt very happy to be escaping the harassment and other issues I had faced in my prior workplace. … [11] That optimism, however, was short-lived. On her first day, she was introduced to the Team Lead and the office manager, CW. The Grievor states at para. 97: “CW in my opinion was trying to intimidate me when informing me how in the past it usually takes a staff member on average approximately 18 months to learn the position that I’m about to hold. …” [12] Within a few weeks of her commencement of the job, she began to experience issues with her co-workers, the Team Lead and the office manager. She states at para. 50: “It is my belief that from the first day at the Waterloo office the employer intended to harm me in the hope that it could lead to constructive dismissal.” In her view, at para. 151: “From the first day at work I was treated differently and made to feel inferior.” [13] The Grievor listed a number of actions in regard to “their abuse of power”, at para. 40: • Not addressing my concerns • Allowing staff to tamper with my work • Putting me in opposition forcing me to work excessive hours during peak season • Isolating me • Speaking untruthfully of my professional conduct • Allowing my personal belongings to be damaged and tampering with my food • Allowing a toxic and unsafe work environment • Requiring an IME under false pretenses • Fostering a biased medical examination • Allowing me to become fearful for my safety in the workplace • Turning a blind eye • Concerns falling on deaf ears • Obstruction of a police investigation - 5 - [14] She claimed that her Team Lead intentionally withheld a training manual for her position and when she found it in August 2010, he claimed that it was “outdated and did not want me to be confused and to continue writing my manual.” The manual was dated 2005. She states: “Basically I was required to write a user manual for a program that I had no knowledge of, and required to work with, simultaneously as I learned to service the clients.” Her “anxiety went through the roof.” It was “difficult to manage and difficult to hide” and “because of this I believe I became an easy target.” In November 2010, during off-site training, she learned that the 2005 manual was still being used, which led her to break down and cry. She stated at para. 232: I spent the evenings during training dealing with anxieties at a level where I needed help but none was available. I was alone in my room not knowing where to turn, the nightmares, waking up screaming, and lack of sleep affected my ability to learn; again playing into the hands of management to further be able to pursue constructive dismissal if I don’t succeed at accomplishing my work. [15] She states that the Team Lead withheld information/documentation required to do her job, imposed unreasonable time limits, and micromanaged her. She asserts that the phone lines were structured in a way to cause disruption to her work and make “training that much more difficult.” The call volume was because “management set me up for failure.” She also stated that she, alone, did not have a designated phone line, so if she wanted to make any personal calls she had to do so from a nearby office. She continued at para. 153: “Denying me from having an available designated telephone when everyone else in the office had a telephone line designated to them is treating me differently; discrimination.” Later in her will-say statement, however, she stated that a telephone line associated with her name was placed at Station B, while she was working at Station A. Her Team Lead was at Station B. At para. 159, she states: “This caused me concern so I contacted IT and asked that they remove the telephone number connected to my name since that phone line was located in Station B where the team lead was located.” She then surmised, at para. 160, that this was done “to monitor any incoming calls for me.” When the Team Lead relayed that a call from a manager came for her but did not provide a name or phone number, she was suspicious of his motives. Since he was “more professional and competent than that” it led her “to believe it was intended to cause me stress.” She stated at para. 158: “Was this simply to stress me out, chipping at away at me slowly!” [16] Another issue was when the Team Lead mentioned, in June 2010, that she would be receiving a package, and the following week, at home, she received an envelope from the MOF concerning a Resignation Interview Document and Severance Estimate. She asks, at para. 181: “How did the team lead know about this; I don’t believe even management at M.T.O. should have this information?” [17] In her view, the Team Lead would “often make inappropriate remarks.” He told her “he does not want to give me anything to do that would make me leave and not come back.” She stated at para. 188, that she believed that “he was making reference to how I left my place of work at MOF” where she left “[a]fter overhearing the site manager make a comment about needing a baseball bat at work” so she - 6 - “put away her work and left the workplace in fear of my safety.” The Team Lead’s comment, in her view at para. 77, meant that “previous management from MOF confided with management at MTO contrary to the policy “need to know” and they related something to the team lead…” [18] She states that she was repeatedly “singled out” and treated differently from others. Some additional detail is provided in her will-say statement, but her conclusions are based on assumptions regarding motivation that are not supported in the evidence. For example, for a time, she believes that when her Team Lead wanted to be considered for another position, he put more of an effort into training her, and “stopped putting up barriers”. But when he did not get the position, it did not last. She stated at para. 236: “Even though his improved behaviour towards me did not last it was enough to show me that he had been influenced to cause me unnecessary stress.” [19] Similarly, she states that on June 30, 2010, the Team Lead made an “April Fool’s” joke, which led her to think about prior issues she had at the MOF with April Fools jokes. She wondered: “How could he have known that?” “Where is he getting his information and why is he using it to harass me?” [20] He had also told her, in confidence, that he was directed to send a weekly report to the manager about her progress. He told her about this to be open and transparent, but when she asked for a copy of what he sent, he declined as she was not supposed to know he was sending a weekly report. She subsequently noticed that the Team Lead “was placing calls around 4 pm from the DIC office, on Fridays.” To her, at para. 176, “[i]t appeared that the team lead had changed his concern about being open and forthcoming and changed his method of presenting the weekly report on me….” [21] Her first complaint about harassment – about the Team Lead and another co- worker, a Driver Improvement Counsellor (“DIC”) - was submitted by email on July 15, 2010, to the office Manager, Ms. CW, with copies to several others in the government and the Union. In it she states that “[a]s you should be aware I received the General Issuing Clerk position due to a Health Reassignment…” It outlines some of the issues noted above, plus a few others – a coaster she was given that went missing but then was returned, the Team Lead’s requests to use her computer because “his computer was supposedly acting up”; issues with a co- worker, the DIC– who talked loudly disturbing her work, and had sat at her desk – which she had not seen her do with anyone else. In an earlier email the same day, she wanted to know about the procedure for dealing with harassment, and was “[a]waiting your response by email. Since I need to leave early due to my health being impact by this…” [22] The Union asserts that “nothing was done” about this complaint. The evidence does not support that conclusion. [23] The Manager responded the following day, as follows: Hi Carole, - 7 - I am following up on my [sic] email dated July 15th. As I have previously stated, the Ministry takes allegation of discrimination and/or harassment seriously. I encourage you to contact Shaila Salazar, WDHP Advisor from the Center of Employee Health, Safety & Wellness responsible for the Ministry of Transportation portfolio, to make arrangement to meet in order to provide the particulars of your complaint. … [24] In a separate email, Ms. CW provided a copy of the WDHP policy to the Grievor. [25] In the latter part of July, 2010, the Grievor was in contact with Ms. Salazar. They also had a meeting on July 27, 2010. When Ms. Salazar requested additional information, the Grievor responded, on August 9: “Hello Shaila, I am trying to send you an email but it is difficult due to lack of privacy and the fact that I am being closely monitored by my team lead.” On August 11, 2010, Ms. Salazar sent the Grievor an email, suggesting that they have a teleconference call to discuss the additional information requested on the phone. [26] The following day, August 12, 2010, the Grievor sent an email to Ms. Salazar, but did not provide any additional information. Instead, she stated that “[t]he described behaviour fits the definition of Discrimination and Harassment in the WDHP Policy whether intentional or not however I do feel it was intentional and unwelcome and ought reasonably have been known to be unwelcome. It continues: (Tab 58) I’ve inquired with my manager, CW, what is being done to prevent future occurrences and she informed me that you would be dealing with it, therefore, I ask you what is going to done to prevent any future outbreaks of this behavior. Is there going to be an investigation as per my request at our meeting as to how the information leading to this harassment has transferred from the previous Ministry to the Ministry of Transportation. As a resolution to this issue I would seek to report to a different manager at this office; and CW, [the Team Lead and the DIC] all proceed one step closer to dismissal. As the principles of the WDHP policy state, discrimination and harassment are treated seriously, my health reassignment to this office should have brought my pain and anguish over the past 15 years, and the countless hours I have spent with my husband dealing with these issues to an end, [27] Ms. Salazar responded the following day, August 13, 2010, saying that there were still three additional questions she had from their July 27th meeting, and reminded her that she was going to check her diary for the answers. The Grievor responded on August 16, 2010, with some additional information. - 8 - [28] The Grievor was also in contact with Kerry Gennings, an OPSEU Staff Representative, about possibly filing a grievance or a formal WDHP complaint. On August 19, 2010, she wrote to Mr. Gennings, stating: “I have decided not to pursue the grievance or the WDHP complaint at this point in time so I won’t be contacting [the local steward] or filing a complaint with the employer.” She continued: “It is my hope to resolve minor workplace issues as they arise and work to build positive and supportive connections in the workplace so that I can continue my healing process.” (Tab 67). [29] On the same date, the Grievor wrote to Ms. CW, stating that she would like to “try a different approach.” It states: It would be an understatement to say that my time at the Ministry of Revenue caused me a lot of problems. You also know already that my transfer to MTO was done as a medical reassignment based on accommodation for my medical condition. My condition is something I am likely to be dealing with for a long time, but please be assured that I am getting regular treatment and am making progress. I see a therapist regularly (on lunch hours) and I am being monitored by my family doctor as well. What I am getting at is that because of my condition and what I have been through, I think I need to ask you to give me a type of support other employees might not normally need. Because of what I have been through in the past at the hands of co-workers, I promised myself that I would stand up for myself in the future. But I don’t want to make the mistake of reacting to a situation in a way that ends up making it worse. I think it would help me to be able to talk through with you situations which involve difficult workplace interactions in order to help me know how to best handle something and to know the difference between when I need to really protect myself versus when a simple comment to the co- worker may be ample o resolve the issue. Is it ok with you if I talk to you about those situations informally in order to help me handle them in the best way possible? I did not have that kind of support in my last workplace and I really want things to continue going well here. I should also say that I am enjoying my job and the office very much. It is night and day compared to my old office. It is wonderful to be back in the workplace working with good people. Please let me know if you are open to having that type of conversation with me periodically. Since I originally wrote to you in July, I have noticed that things have improved with both [the Team Lead and the - 9 - DIC]. If you were the cause of that, then I appreciate your intervention. If not, then thank you for giving me the chance to share my concerns and I am glad things have improved on their own. Either way, I don’t think any more action is required at this point. I realize I copied a lot of people on my July 15 message to you. Would you like me to send [them] a short email to close the matter or would you prefer to do so? I am open to your guidance on how to handle that. I’ll send a note to the union folks letting them know. I would appreciate your handling my request above in a discreet and sensitive manner. Can I please trouble you for a response within a day or two, so I know my request is being received. It would be very difficult and awkward for me not to hear back from you. Thank you for your understanding. [30] On August 20, 2010, Ms. CW responded, at Tab 69: Hi Carole, Thank you again for your email sent yesterday indicating that you wish to close the matter raised with me on July 15th and August 13th. As per your email below, I have notified Shaila Salazar of the WDHP unit regarding your correspondence and I am awaiting a response from her on how she will proceed given your comments. I would like to arrange a meeting with you and include Dave Worby in order for us to discuss potential accommodation needs and how they may interact with the operational issues of the office. I am committed to supporting you and fostering a positive workplace. I am planning on being in the Waterloo office on the morning of Thursday August 26th and would like to meet you at that time. Have a good weekend. [31] In her will-say, the Grievor provides a different explanation for her August 19 email. She states at par 312: Then on August 19th, 2010, I sent an email to CW trying a different approach of dealing with the staff’s behaviour because my serious concerns were not being heard. I feel where there is fear there is also confusion. That package that the team lead had told me about just a couple of months previously often wavered in the mind; management wanted me out. - 10 - [32] She further states, at para. 313: “I continued to work trying to keep my head up and ignore the staff behavior and continuous disruption; however, it was extremely difficult.” [33] It appears that a “support meeting” took place at the end of August, and that Ms. CW requested a second one on October 1, 2010. At that meeting, the Grievor was asked to put forward any requested accommodations, particularly given that her sick days were high. She responded on October 7, as follows: [A]fter serious consideration I believe that if the following accommodations are accepted I feel it should help in reducing my sick days. Any meetings and communications to be done by email by all parties involved. To be kept informed of any visits, meetings, plans, etc. To be fully informed when requested to complete a task; withholding information I feel [to be] a counterproductive training tactic. To be fully informed of any travel arrangements and to allowed to request changes if not comfortable with them. [The DIC] to stop coming into the IRP work area to call clients; she can mirror the other 2 DIC’s by using her intercom and her office or a boardroom. BPP [performance review] not to be done by the group lead since I filed a complaint of harassment against him and he may be resentful. Sick days threshold to be raised to 10 days for the next six months and to be reviewed at that time. With your assistance and cooperation I feel these accommodations may not be permanent. [34] The Employer advised the Grievor that she would need medical documentation to support any accommodation requests. She was also advised, however, that the Employer was unable to restrict the DIC’s movement in the office. According to Mr. Mastorakos, at para. 28 of his will-say, the Waterloo office is a small office and complete segregation of staff is not operationally feasible. [35] On December 8, 2010, the Grievor sent an email to acting office manager WHL, regarding the DIC’s volume, and asking, again, “to have [the DIC] work from her office and not in the IRP area.” She had raised this issue before “and feel I am being harassed, gracefully again.” (Tab 112). The Grievor often used the term “graceful harassment”. [36] It appears that WHL viewed the Grievor’s email as a WDHP complaint, and referred it to Christine Hirschberg, a WDHP Advisor. The Grievor subsequently sent Ms. Hirscherg a five-page letter outlining incidents of harassment, and the impact on her. In it, she mentions filing a complaint before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The letter recites the claims made in the July 15, 2010 email, and a few other instances of the DIC’s conduct, including interactions with the Team Lead, and raising her shirt to show tan lines to a co-worker. - 11 - [37] Ms. Hirschberg asked for follow-up information on January 10, 2011. The Grievor responded on January 13, 2011. [38] On January 11, 2011, the Grievor again requested an accommodation that “[the DIC and the Team Lead] be prevented from interacting with me and further harassing me until a decision is rendered by the Human Rights Tribunal.” [39] The Grievor was again advised that the Employer could not restrict the DIC’s movement in the office, and the Grievor replied on January 18, 2011: Hello [WHL], As discussed in our meeting last Thursday you mentioned you could not restrict [the DIC’s] movement throughout the building. Again that is not my request. I had requested that she not come into the IRP area where I work. I have not been given a reasonable explanation as to why that is not possible. … [40] Apparently, they also met on that date concerning the accommodation process. This was followed by a letter, on the same date, from WHL to the Grievor concerning the process for requesting accommodations based on medical needs, including a Health Information Form for her doctor to complete. The Grievor was also advised, in an email: Please know that until the WDHP assessment is complete I cannot make any accommodations preventing [the DIC] from entering the IRP work area. On December 13, 2010, I sent an email to the staff requesting that they refrain from discussing driving records in work areas. In this email I also noted that this will assist in being courteous to our colleagues who conduct business in open work areas. This should help address your concerns regarding her presence in the IRP work area on the days she is scheduled to work out of Waterloo. (Tab 138.) [41] According to the Grievor’s will-say, at para. 359, she was “again reminded that management had a close eye on me”. She stated that Regional Manager Theo Mastorakos attended their staff meeting, and stated that “the Ministry does not want to be embarrassed”. She “suspected he was speaking at me and was able to get away with his comment/threat to me by camouflaging his speech in a staff meeting.” As she stated at para. 368: “I believe the torch was passed on from the M.O.F. to Mr. Theo Mastorakos, the regional manager at M.T.0.” [42] Mr. Mastorakos, in his will-say does not recall this particular meeting and denied singling out the Grievor. [43] On January 27, 2011, at Tab 142, the Grievor wrote an email to Mr. Mastorakos, copying, among others, Ms. Hirschberg and someone at OPSEU. She asks that he “look into or put a stop to what I feel is retaliation from [the Team Lead].” She referred to a client interaction she had that she “assumed” the Team Lead had - 12 - worked on, given the location of the paperwork. She stated: “I feel [the Team Lead] conveniently disposed of the cover letter, did not re-fax the invoice or update our database and set me up to deal with an uncomfortable situation and deal with a potentially irate client again.” She wanted “to inquire when I was given this position last June did my health reassignment bump an associate of CW, [the DIC or the Team Lead]? Is that why since my employment at this office I have had such difficulty?” She again raised the IRP manual issue, and stated “[t]here are quite a few other scenarios which I’ve documented and I can discuss them with you if you like.” She concluded: “I feel this is leading to a poisoned work environment much as it has led to in the previous work locations. As this is a very serious situation I would like your response to include the chain of command above your position.” [44] The following day, January 28, 2011, Mr. Mastorakos responded, advising that he had reviewed her email “and since Christine Hirschberg, WDHP Advisor…is currently conducting an assessment on previous allegations you have made against [the Team Lead], I have asked her to review your email and to provide her assessment. She may need to discuss the particulars of your complaints with you so please make yourself available to facilitate this process.” It concludes: “As we are following the appropriate processes per the WDHP Policy, it is inappropriate for me to escalate the matter at this time.” [45] On January 31, 2011, at 8:47 a.m., she sent another email to Mr. Mastorakos, advising him that under the WDHP policy a manager must act immediately upon becoming aware of potential policy violations, whether or not a complaint has been filed. She states: “It would appear to me by your not taking action to prevent further complaint from arising you are condoning the actions of [the Team Lead]. ...” (Tab 144) [46] On the same date, at almost the same time, 8:49 a.m., Ms. Hirschberg , the WDHP Advisor, sent an email to the Grievor, asking to speak to her about her WDHP complaint. [47] On February 2, 2011, the Grievor sent an email to then Premier Kathleen Wynn concerning the harassing behaviour since “Mr. Mastorakos has ignored my concern and is relying on Christine Hirschberg the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy (WDPH) advisor to deal with it.” [48] On February 14, 2011, according to Mr. Mastorakos’ will-say at para. 31, the Grievor’s husband approached one his managers at the Waterloo office and advised that he believed that his wife was intent on harming herself. That same day, she was called to a meeting where Mr. Mastorakos, who was on a speaker phone, questioned if she was a danger to herself. She denied it. She stated, at para. 384 of her will-say, that she was in “shock as to what length management will go to establish fear into me”. She “felt he was checking to see if they were being successful at stressing me out.” She stated, at para. 557, that she believed this meeting “had nothing to do with my well-being and everything to do with how far he can push me so I quit work because so far my concerns have fallen on deaf ears.” [49] The fact that Mr. Morissette approached the Employer with his concern about his wife is unrefuted. Further, the Grievor’s will-say, several times, references - 13 - occasions when the Grievor seriously contemplated suicide. At para. 360, in recounting an incident at the MOF, she stated that she found a meeting “so devastating…that while driving back from London to Kitchener I seriously thought of driving into a hydro pole in an attempt at suicide to end all this pain and suffering.” At para. 417, she states: “I had the intention of ending my life on November 11, 2011.” On October 18, 2010, her diary states: “Now I hope I will stop thinking about taking my life; it’s that difficult.” The Employer’s concern was entirely reasonable in the circumstances. [50] After its investigation, WDHP determined that the Grievor’s complaint had no basis in fact, and advised that there should be a workplace assessment. [51] On March 7, 2011, Mr. Mastorakos advised staff that management “has decided to bring in an external consultant to conduct an ‘Organizational Review’ in order to both identify the issues and determine what is the appropriate approach to take to resolve any and all concerns.” Staff were advised that “[a]ll information discussed with the consultant must remain strictly confidential and should not be shared amongst fellow staff members.” He stated: “At the conclusion of this review, the consultant will provide me with a report which will form the basis of any next steps I may need to take to resolve all outstanding issues.” Upon learning of this external review, the Grievor “concluded [that] my email to Honorable Kathleen Wynn had an impact.” [52] Mr. Mastorakos states, in his will-say, that despite the WDHP finding that the Grievor’s complaints had no basis in fact, she continued to claim co-worker harassment. According to Mr. Mastorakos will-say, at para. 29: Management received several complaints from other employees that they were afraid of the Grievor. More specifically, employees expressed that they were nervous when interacting with the Grievor, due to the fear that she may assert allegations of harassment against them. The workplace became very tense following the Grievor’s arrival in June 2010. It was the culmination of these complaints, combined with the Grievor’s own complaints that she was being harassed, which influenced our decision to conduct a formal workplace assessment review. [53] In April 2011, shortly after the external consultant came to the office, it was announced that the Team Lead, was leaving the MOT. The Grievor stated that the Team Lead was “generally well-liked by staff,” and, at para. 427, that “[a]fter his departure the behaviour of many staff members that had been indifferent up to this point appeared to have changed towards me. I felt that I was being blamed for his sudden departure.” She was relocated to his cubicle, which “put salt on a wound” as a constant reminder to staff, who were blaming her for his departure. - 14 - [54] The Ministry attempted to contact the Team Lead in connection with this hearing, but the phone number on record for him is no longer in use.2 Mr. Mastorakos also stated that the Team Lead was “a very likeable individual and a very soft-spoken and good-natured person”, which may explain why he was “generally well-liked by staff.” According to Mr. Mastorakos, “t]he allegations against him are completely at odds with the manner in which [the Team Lead] carried out his group lead duties.” He stated: “It is my recollection that one of the reasons [the Team Lead] choose to resign was because of the continuing, meritless allegations made against him by the Grievor.” [55] The external Workplace Assessment was prepared by Ms. Grace Shore and consequently became known as the “Grace Shore Report.” She interviewed twenty employees between March 22 and March 29, 2011, including Team Lead J and the DIC. The Grievor was “Employee 20.” Ms. Shore met with the WDHP Advisor and reviewed the documentation provided by the Grievor to them. The consultant described her mandate as follows: 1. To determine where possible, the facts related to Employee 20’s allegations based on interviews and documents, to determine if the allegations fell within the scope of the WDHP policy. 2. To ensure management had conducted due diligence in addressing Employee 20’s original allegations. 3. To identify any other workplace issues that may be present. [56] During this review, the Grievor provided Ms. Shore with her diary notes and other personal information, and had a full opportunity to discuss her concerns. [57] The Grace Shore report was issued in May 2011. The report very thoroughly canvasses the Grievor’s allegations of harassment beginning from her first day on the job; her allegations against the Team Lead, the DIC and management. She found them to be without merit and found “no harassment.” She found numerous examples “where she interprets the simplest pleasantry as some type of conspiracy against her.” She determined that the Grievor makes “incorrect interpretations” of events. In the Section “Additional Comments From Employees”, she noted the following employee comments: People are fearful that they will be the next one to face Employee 20’s accusations and it is a relief when Employee 20 calls in sick for the day and everyone can go back to feeling relaxed. … … Management is aware of the issues involving Employee 20 but everyone is walking on eggshells and the work environment has changed as a result. While I feel sorry 2 The Ministry also attempted to reach Ms. CW, who was on a leave of absence with the return date unknown, and Mr. Worby, Regional Care Coordinator, Western Region, who, according to Mr. Mastorakos, “had little to no recollection” of this matter. - 15 - for Employee 20 we have to avoid speaking with her because she will accuse you of something. The workplace environment is very uncomfortable. Some days Employee 20 will talk and other days she will turn her head sideways and not look at you, she will sit in her car to avoid walking in with you in the morning – she will not deal with customers. … I feel very intimidated by Employee 20 because I don’t know what she is thinking. … I don’t feel comfortable around Employee 20. I’m not sure what she will do next. It’s frightening. … Employee 20 needs help and no one seems to recognize that. … [58] She recommended that the Employer request that the employee “undergo a medical assessment to determine her suitability to continue to work in the workplace or to put in place accommodations that may be required.” [59] The Grievor was not provided a copy of the Grace Shore report until the litigation of this case. She tried, through a lawyer, to obtain a copy through a Freedom of Information request, but was not successful (para. 598) When the Grievor was subsequently provided a copy of it, through this litigation, she stated at pars. 393- 394: “I recently received and read the Grace Shore report and I believe it reinforces why I felt that the staff did not like me because I am French. The hatred I felt at the office by the staff; the physical assaults and all the other behavior all make sense to me now.” [60] There is one sentence in the entire Grace Shore report that involves the Grievor’s speaking French. At p. 6, it states: “One employee said because of the workplace tension, when Employee 20 and her husband sit together and speak French she feels excluded and suspicious that they may be discussing her or are looking for ways to target her or other workers.” [61] In late May 2011, the Employer requested medical information from the Grievor’s doctor to “determine whether Ms. Morissette is able to continue to work at the Waterloo Office, and if so, whether there are any accommodations that may be required.” Her doctor, Dr. Takhar, from Franklin Medical Centre, responded that she had no medical condition that impacts her ability to perform her duties, including her ability to work with co-workers. Dr. Takhar was not the Grievor’s regular family doctor; he was a doctor employed by the same group practice. In the Grievor’s view, at para. 458: “the Grace Shore report reveals that the manager had no justification to send me to another Medical Examination or was this tactic to add stress on me and another attempt to get closer to constructive dismissal?” [62] According to the Grievor, at para. 543, in May 2011 her food was put in the freezer. In June, her food disappeared from the kitchen refrigerator, and her prescription - 16 - reading glasses were “mysteriously broken by someone.” Her claim that her food was being tampered with, was “similar [to] behavior I experienced at the Kitchener MOF office” (para. 513). Although she advised management, “nothing was done about my broken reading glasses leaving me in fear what else will occur.” [63] In his will-say, at para. 43, Mr. Mastorakos did not recall the specifics of these incidents, but did “recall that her description of these allegations were very vague. The Grievor never named a specific suspect and her allegations were speculative at best, making it very difficult for management to respond to these allegations.” [64] On June 3, 2011, the Grievor sent another email to Mr. Mastorakos about the DIC, stating that she “allowed little room for me to go by [in the hallway] and appeared to stand her ground. I feel that anyone else would have made an attempt to leave me a little more room to pass. … This is not a complaint; I’m just letting you know that there is still attitude in the office.” (Tab 181) In her will-say statement, at para. 474, she states: “On numerous occasions she attempts to hip check me when she walks by so I requested help to resolve this from the regional manager.” [65] On June 10, 2011, the Grievor sent a lengthy email to Mr. Mastorakos. She decided to “share some more personal information with you so that you can understand a little better about my history.” She then related some very personal information – childhood traumas, prior psychological IMEs and diagnoses. She requested to move to a workstation that had less traffic, and restates some of her complaints against the Team Lead and the DIC. She recognizes that her “response to these situations is different than the way other people would respond because of my history and my medical condition.” She insisted, however, that the “incidents happen[ed].” [66] The following day, June 11, 2011, Mr. Mastorakos responded: Carole, Thank you for your candour in sharing your personal matters with me. As you know, this information is new to me and I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to assist you so I will be seeking guidance in order to best address your needs. … In the interim, I encourage you to return the request for medical information completed as quickly as possible and to [Ms CW] so that we can work with you to develop an accommodation plan. [67] On June 8, 2011, she received her performance appraisal for 2010-2011. In it, there was one issue about her interaction with a client, which stated: Clients communicated concerns regarding Carole’s interactions, specifically one long-term client that advised when she attempted to explain a transactional process that Carole’s response was not courteous. - 17 - [68] The only other negative comment concerned a lack of prompt telephone service. Otherwise, she “met requirements.” [69] In the Grievor’s view, at para. 492, this performance appraisal was inaccurate and “[a]nother reason why I believe that management was working on constructive dismissal by showing false allegations on my BPP.” She followed up with the client, asking whether she had been harsh to her at any time, and was told “no.” The Manager then advised her that “contacting ministry clients other than for business reasons is inappropriate. Conversations with a ministry client regarding past complaints or regarding confidential performance discussions that took place between you and I are not business reasons and should not occur.” (para. 496; Tab 194). She then stated at para. 506: “It is my opinion that management never thought I was brave enough to confront the client for clarification.” She also stated at pars. 502-503: “I felt that my manager can lie on my BPP and there is nothing I can do to remedy it. I was continuously reminded of how much abuse of power management was getting away with, to reach the goal of constructive dismissal.” [70] On August 16, 2011, Ms. CW requested the Grievor to attend an IME. The assessment took place on September 9, 2011, with the report issued on September 23, 2011. It was performed by Dr. Mitchell Spivak. He concluded in relevant part, as follows: She made multiple references to her sense of being persecuted which may have reached delusional intensity. … Her affect was at times angry and other times euthymic, but generally humorless. She described her mood as being good. Her insight was poor and her judgement appeared to be intact. It is difficult to be definitive about a diagnosis in Ms. Morissette’s case. She has had longstanding perceptions of being persecuted in the workplace. There is enough documentation that suggests that various other witnesses to this harassment have felt that they had been harassed by her, which would suggest that perhaps Ms. Morissette’s perspective may be somewhat biased. That she reads into seemingly benign remarks is consistent with someone having delusional like symptoms. With that being said, her difficulties appear to be circumscribed solely to the workplace and do not appear to be currently part of a particular conspiracy system beyond the fact that she is fixated on the subject of bullying. …. The consistency of this finding is more consistent with personality dysfunction. She may in fact make criteria for paranoid personality disorder, but based on the information available today, it is difficult to commit to this diagnosis. - 18 - … It may be best to describe Ms. Morissette as a psychologically fragile individual who is prone to perceiving slights in specific environments and perceiving threats than to give a formal psychiatric diagnosis. [71] He answered the following questions posed by the Employer, with the answers in italics: 2). Is Ms. Morissette suffering from a psychological condition that impacts her ability to work cooperatively with her co-workers (No diagnosis is requested). Yes 2(b). if yes, please outline the psychological restrictions and limitations that exist that are preventing Ms. Morissette form working co-operatively with her co- workers. Ms. Morissette has a recurrent perception of being persecuted, 2 (c ) What is the prognosis for improvement in her ability to work co-operatively with her colleagues? The perception of being persecuted or “bullied” in the workplace is unlikely to change. [72] He did not, however, find her “medically precluded from working in her current workplace. She is able to attend the workplace without modification.” There were “no barriers beyond Ms. Morissette’s lack of insight.” It noted that she “may be a difficult person to work with in the workplace.” [73] In Dr. Spivak’s IME report, at p. 3, he mentions the Grace Shore report and noted, among many other things, “that when Ms. Morissette communicates with her husband in French that they feel like they are being spoken about.” From this the Grievor surmised at para. 589, that Dr. Spivak reported “that the staff at the Waterloo office do not like me because I am French.” This made her “realize that what I have been experiencing is considered a HATE CRIME; and management had been participating in and encouraging the staff by not dealing with it” (para. 594) (emphasis in original). At para. 597 she states: “More reason, in my opinion why management has been working diligently to get me out of the work force; constructive dismissal.” [74] Management was not provided a copy of the IME. Mr. Mastorakas stated in his will-say at para. 45, that he was not privy to the actual IME. [75] The Grievor asserts in her will-say that management denied her reimbursements for travel and related expenses for training and her IME appointments. According - 19 - to the will-say of Mr. Mastorakos, at para. 38, it was likely that either he or Ms. CW asked for receipts, and he was unsure if receipts were provided. He states: “If these expenses were not reimbursed it could be due to the fact that the Grievor’s receipts weren’t submitted, and/or weren’t submitted correctly. It is highly unlikely that management would withhold funds from an employee who was entitled to be reimbursed.” [76] In her will-say, the Grievor states that on September 9, 2011 – the date she attended the IME – Mr. Mastorakos “showed up at the office” (Para. 552) and told her “if the quality of life is not good, you should move on”, which she found “absolutely inappropriate and confirmation that he was pursuing constructive dismissal, he wants me gone, more graceful harassment.” She further stated (para. 555) “This statement coming from the regional manager on the day they requested an unnecessary medical examination was putting salt on my wounds.” [77] In his will-say statement, at para. 44, Mr. Mastorakos denies making this statement. He did not recall whether he attended the Waterloo office on September 9, 2011, although it was possible that he did. He did “not recall speaking directly to the Grievor…, nor would I have singled her out by directing inappropriate comments towards her while addressing all MTO Waterloo office staff.” [78] On September 29, 2011, the Grievor sent an email to Ms. CW, alleging that the stapler was broken “from a ‘fit of rage’ by someone” as were her reading glasses. She also mentioned a rock that a co-worker kept on her desk and that she “was told last year that this rock is used to keep people in their place.” So she asked her husband, who works in the same office, “to remove the large stone from the IRP department.” (Tab 212.) In her will-day, the Grievor states: (Para. 568 “I requested the removal of the rock as a violent incident occurred and I was in fear that a staff member would become so angry that she may use the rock as a ‘weapon of opportunity.’” It’s not clear in the evidence what “violent incident” occurred, but it seems likely this may refer to the stapler that was broken in a “fit of rage.” [79] According to Mr. Mastorakos, the rock was the property of a co-worker, a keep- sake from his family farm in Alberta. Apparently at the Grievor’s request, Mr. Morrissette did take the rock, and the co-worker filed a complaint that his personal property had been taken. Mr. Morrissette was issued a five-day suspension for this action, and subsequently went off work on stress-leave. According to the Grievor, at para. 54, this was “harassing my support person….my husband, all in an attempt to accomplish their goal in hope that it could lead to my constructive dismissal.” [80] On October 17, 2011, Mr. Dave Worby, Injury & Illness Coordinator, and Ms. CW met with the Grievor and her Union representative, Kerry Gennings. The findings of the IME were reviewed, and, according to minutes of the meeting: “If Carole continues to raise complaints in the workplace under WDHP she may be subject to discipline.” Ms. CW advised that “there are 15 people who work in 5 different units in the MTO office in Waterloo” and it “is a whole shared work environment.” The Grievor was offered the opportunity to attend counselling at the Employer’s expense through “Mental Health Works” which is a 20-hour program of individual - 20 - counselling. The Grievor agreed to attend. (Tab 220.) The record does not indicate whether this counselling took place. [81] In her will-say, at para. 599, the Grievor asserts that Mr. Worby “accused me of being the problem in all three offices that I worked at” and that the statement “was unwelcome and inappropriate…” Her response to him, at para. 603, “was that ‘I’m French’ that was why there was a problem. Their lack of response to me indicated to me I was correct.” [82] The Grievor began to look for other positions within the OPS. On October 26, 2011, her family doctor, Dr. Jodie Wang wrote a “To Whom It May Concern” letter as follows: This lady is being treated for stress issues. She feels that her current position, which entails working with others, exacerbates her stress. She believes that she will do better in a position where she works alone. She describes the position of Court Clerk as being such an environment. I have read the report by Dr. Spivak. He concurs that she is unlikely to be able to get along with co-workers in the future. [83] According to Mr. Mastorakos, at paras. 46-47, in mid-October 2011, the Grievor requested, on several occasions, to be moved into an alternative position in which she could work alone, such as the Court Clerk position. The Court Clerk position, however, was a higher classification. He did not recall having a face-to-face meeting about it, but stated: “However, if I did, I likely would have encouraged her to apply for such position if she so desired.” Upon review of his correspondence, he recalled that he informed her on November 9, 2011, that the Court Clerk position she wished to be placed into (without a job competition) was not an option as the job was likely going to be posted and filled per the job competition process under the collective agreement. [84] On October 28, 2011, the Grievor alleges that she was “hip-checked” by the DIC in the hallway of the office. Originally, however, she reported on November 1, 2011 to Jason Droog, District Enforcement Manager, that “the other day” she saw this occur to someone else – a male employee in the office – after which she told the man that “this was harassment.” Mr. Droog then reported this to CW who issued a Non-Disciplinary Letter of Counsel to the Grievor on November 2, 2011. CW had previously directed the Grievor to report any allegations of perceived harassment directly to her. The letter states that “it is crucial that you understand that making frivolous, incomplete and/or false allegations against other employees is not appropriate behaviour in the workplace and will not be tolerated.” (Tab 234) [85] The Grievor attended work on November 8, 2011. On November 9, 2011, the Grievor sent an email in response to CWs Non-Disciplinary Letter of Counsel, but she reported that the “hip-check” also occurred to her. She states: - 21 - As you stated in this letter, on November 1st I did report an incident to Jason Droog. Friday, October 28 at approximately 2:20 p.m. while walking away from the IRP department I was assaulted by [the DIC] which literally took me off my feet. This was not the first time [the DIC] has behaved this way but Friday’s incident was also experienced by someone else and this is when I was informed what I experienced was called a “hip check’, until then I did not know of the terminology. I did inform the person that also was “hip checked” that what we experienced was bullying and harassment. I have not been able to report these incidents to you in the past because of your lack of effectively correcting the situation and I feel at times your contribution by continuously stating in your emails that I am perceiving these incidents. … [86] In her will-say, at para. 619, she states: “This is the reason I had to report the incident to the police. No one at work was taking me seriously.” [87] In fact, the Employer did take the matter seriously and conducted an investigation, pursuant to the Workplace Violence Prevention Policy, which requires the Employer to “[r]espond effectively to incidents and complaints of workplace violence.” Information was obtained on November 10, 2011 from the DIC, and the contact information was sought for the man who was in the hallway (an IT contractor) was obtained. He was contacted on November 22, 2011. He advised that he had come to the office to retrieve computer equipment and the Grievor had shown him the location of the equipment. When they were walking toward the small hallway adjacent to the location of the equipment another person wearing a coat was walking toward them and the Grievor passed the other person closely but he did not see any physical contact. He passed by this person next with no physical contact. Once they had passed, the Grievor turned to him and said that the other person was “not in a good mood today.” In his view, neither of them were in a good mood. The report, dated November 24, 2011, concluded: There is sufficient evidence to support that the allegation filed by the Complainant with respect to events at the MTO office…on October 28, 2011 is without merit. Therefore there has been no violation of the Workplace Violence Prevention Policy by [the DIC] on October 28, 2011 with respect to this allegation. [88] The report also noted that a group grievance had been filed by employees in the office. It was a group grievance concerning a “poisonous” and unsafe workplace. The grievance states: We as a group feel that our workplace is unsafe and poisonous. Each one of us has expressed feelings of being threatened, feeling unsafe and feeling physically sick when having to come into our office. As you are aware, the situation has been going on for over a year - 22 - and has included a third-party consultant. We feel that management has not effectively corrected this situation. As per the collective agreement and the health and safety act, we expect immediate action to be taken. [89] The Grievor states in her will-say that after this October 28, 2011 incident she “made the decision to go through with my suicide. It was the last straw, my only option I felt I had was to end my life on 11-11-11.” She made preparations to end her life at work, but “because of the high level of anxiety I was not able to go to work and follow through with my actions.” Instead, she “reported the assault incident to the Waterloo Regional Police when I found myself not able to end my life.” (Para. 634.) [90] The police attended at the Waterloo MTO office on November 22, 2011. The police report was obtained by the Employer through a Freedom of Information request on September 11, 2013. The Police Report states that the Grievor reported the incident on November 22, 2011. She alleged that she was walking in a hallway at work when the DIC passed her and purposely struck her with a cart carrying files with enough force to cause her to fall against the wall with her right shoulder. The initial investigators spoke with the Grievor, the DIC and Mr. Worby (who had spoken to the “male employee” who was there at the time) and the investigators found that “Reasonable Grounds for the Criminal Code offence of Assault…had not been made out and the investigation was closed.” Subsequently, a lawyer hired by the Grievor complained that the “male employee” had not been interviewed by the police, and the police reopened the investigation. They contacted the individual, who advised that he had spoken to management after the incident, and stated that he was an independent contractor, not an employee, he recalled the event but did not see it as an “incident”. He was right in the hallway with the Grievor and the other person at the time they were passing each other and the other person had the file cart. He did not recall any contact between them; he did not recall anyone being struck with the file cart; he did not see anyone fall into a wall; he did not hear anything about anyone being hurt. He did not know either the Grievor or the other person. The police again concluded that “Reasonable Grounds for the Criminal Code offence of Assault cannot be made out in this case.” The lawyer she hired to pursue this matter cost the Grievor “over 5 thousand dollars in legal fees” (para. 642). [91] The Grievor’s last day of work was November 8, 2011, after which she went off work on sick leave. She then applied and was accepted for LTIP – Long Term Income Protection, with benefits starting on May 12, 2012 as she was determined to be “medically unable to work at [her] occupation as a General Issuing Clerk with the Province of Ontario due to Anxiety and Depression”. [92] On January 14, 2014, the Grievor’s family doctor, Dr. Jodie Wang, sent a “To Whom It May Concern” letter, advising that the Grievor “[m]ay begin Return to Work process. Under care of FMC [Franklin Medical Centre] doctors. Requires placement in a new work environment.” [93] On January 23, 2014, the Ministry wrote back to the Grievor that since she was on LTIP, her return to work had to be coordinated through Manulife. - 23 - [94] On February 2, 2014, Dr. Wang wrote a second “To Whom It May Concern” letter, stating: This lady has been in for regular visits with me, every 4- 6 weeks, for her leave. She has slowly recovered and she has noted gradual clearing of mental fog and anxiety. Therapy has played a large role in this. Her anxiety is linked to the previous work environment and management; therefore I recommend that she not return to the previous work environment, management or job. The cognitive restrictions are: zero tolerance for any harassment/unprofessional conduct/bullying/assault in the work environment. All professional duties are able to be performed. She will continue under care here at Franklin Medical Centre. For any further information, please contact the office. [95] On February 28, 2014, based on these medical notes, and two notes from a therapist, Susan Neeb, Manulife determined that it “is clear that you will be able to return to your own occupation but it is recommended that you do not return to your previous work environment and management.” It advised that disability benefits would cease on May 9, 2014. [96] On March 2, 2014, Dr. Wang wrote that the Grievor “is to be accommodated outside of the Ministry of Transportation for her new job posting. This is to clarify my previous note (Feb 2/14): when I said ‘not to return to previous work environment, management, or job’, this is referring to the Ministry of Transportation.” In a Health Information Form dated April 15, 2014, Dr. Wang stated: “Carole must have a Health Reassignment as per my letters of Feb. 2/ Mar 2.” [97] On May 2, 2014, Mr. Mastorakos advised the Grievor’s Union Representative – pursuant to the Grievor’s request to have all communication come through the Union – that “the next step the Employer is pursuing is an IME (Independent Medical Exam).” (Tab 262). [98] In his will-say, at para. 59, Mr. Mastorakos noted that a health reassignment involves more extensive medical documentation than what had been provided. At para. 60, Mr. Mastorakos states: We also wanted a second IME to be conducted due to the fact that we were concerned that the Grievor was continuing to deal with mental health issues. From our perspective, the family physician’s assessment of the Grievor and the recommended accommodations were inconsistent with the Grievor’s demonstrated behaviors in the workplace. We were skeptical that another health reassignment was something that would address the Grievor’s documented health issues. Moreover, the Grievor had been out of the workplace for 2.5 years; we wanted an updated medical assessment in light of previous workplace issues in 2011 and her subsequent - 24 - long-term absence. In the best interests of the Grievor, the employer and other employee in the Waterloo office, it was decided that an IME was to be completed to objectively assess the Grievor’s ability to return to the workplace. [99] On May 12, 2014, via a letter, the Employer advised that “[t]he information provided indicates that you are not able to return to the Ministry of Transportation in any capacity” and that it “requires greater clarification regarding your restrictions and limitations in order to make a decision on next steps.” Consequently, pursuant to Article 44.9 of the collective agreement, the “Employer is requesting that you attend an independent medical examination (IME).” It asked for her consent to be submitted by May 15, 2014. The Grievor signed the consent on May 15, 2014. On May 20, 2014, the Grievor was provided a list of three specialists to choose from, for the IME. She selected Dr. Stanley Dermer. [100] On May 30, 2014, the Grievor directly emailed the following message to Mr. Mastorakos, copying Sabrina de Girolamo from OPSEU: Hello Theo, Please find attached the requested form. Carole [101] In her will-say, at para. 828, the Grievor asserts that “[o]n May 27, 2014, Mr. Mastorakos sent me an email despite my clear requests that he communicate with me via regular mail and not use email. Mr. Mastorakos sent this email to intentionally harass and bully me. …” She acknowledges that she sent him an email on May 30, but stated: “However, in sending this email, I was in no way negating my earlier requests that all communication be via regular mail.” [102] Mr. Mastorakos states, at para. 61, that he “instinctively responded to her email not recalling her previous request not to have management contact her via email.” There is no evidence that this mistake occurred again. [103] At the Employer’s request, Manulife continued the Grievor’s disability benefits for an additional month, until June 28, 2014. On June 27, 2014, the Employer advised, by letter, that “effective Monday, June 30th, 2014, you will be placed on paid leave pending the Employer’s review of the independent medical examination report, which should provide greater clarification of your restrictions and limitations.” As a result, there was no period that the Grievor was without income or benefits. [104] The IME was scheduled for the Summer of 2014. The Grievor had an initial “intake” meeting on July 3, 2014. As a result of that meeting, Dr. Dermer requested additional documentation that had been mentioned by the Grievor at that meeting. He wanted her attendance records for the period November 2004 to November 2011; her performance reviews from November 2004 to November 2011; the Grace Shore report; and Appendix “A” to an earlier Memorandum of Settlement. - 25 - [105] The first two items were not viewed as problematic – they would just take a bit of time to obtain. They were sent to Dr. Dermer on August 14, 2014. The Grace Shore report and Appendix A to an earlier Memorandum of Settlement caused some concern about confidentiality. The employees who participated in the Grace Shore investigation did so on the basis that their comments would remain confidential; and Appendix A was part of a Memorandum of Settlement that was subject to a confidentiality provision. With discussion and agreement from the Union, the requested documentation was provided to Dr. Dermer: the Grace Shore report was provided on September 14, 2014; Appendix A was provided on November 14, 2014. Dr. Dermer met with the Grievor on July 15, 2014, and a second time on October 28, 2014. He issued his IME report on December 4, 2014. [106] The IME report is very thorough. He reviewed the prior IME from September 23, 2011 by Dr. Spivak, as well as an IME report by Dr. Chaimowitz from December 5, 2008 and one from Dr. Zielinksy, February 9, 2010 – both of which occurred while the Grievor worked for the MOF. He also spoke with Dr. Wang, her family doctor, and Susan Neeb, the Grievor’s therapist. He reviewed many other documents, including the Grace Shore report and Appendix A, and her pharmacy record. Quite a number of psychological tests were performed. [107] There is a striking similarity in the findings of the earlier IMEs. Dr. Chaimowitz – December 5, 2008 – determined that she was “unable to return to paid employment at this time” and that she “should not engage in any activities that require persistent or continued interactions with co-workers and the exercising of higher cognitive functioning.” He found that her perceptions “did not appear to be of delusional extent, but certainly there appeared to be some concerns that there was a fairly paranoid element to this situation.” He determined that she was suffering from “Major Depression with anxious and psychotic features, recurrent, moderate to severe, partially treated” with a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) of approximately 45. [108] Dr. Zielinsky, on February 9, 2010, diagnosed her with a “Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent with psychotic features, in partial remission and Adjustment Disorder with Anxious and Depressed Mood, chronic, Unresolved” as well as Personality Disorder NOS.” He opined that she “tends to be fixated on the work issues without being aware of how these issues may be related to pre-existent, unresolved trauma. Ms. Morissette has found in the occupational issues an acceptable way of processing painful experiences of trauma and victimization.” Nevertheless, he cleared her to return to work with “a permanent restriction of not working for the MOF, at any branch.” He recommended that she work for a different Ministry. But he noted: “Given her history of occupational issues as well as evidence of persistent ways of relating and interpreting interpersonal phenomena, that she may encounter similar problems working elsewhere.” He noted that “[s]he tends to jump to conclusions easily and attributes all blame to others, feeling harassed, targeted and victimized. The psychological restrictions and limitations relate to her difficulties working collaboratively with others.” [109] It is this IME that led to the Grievor’s health reassignment to the MOT in June 2010. Prior to her return to work at the MOT on June 14, 2010, the Grievor had been off work since June 2007. - 26 - [110] Dr. Dermer reviewed Dr. Spivak’s assessment from September 23, 2011, and he noted that “she has had longstanding perceptions of being persecuted in the workplace” and the fact that she “reads into seemingly benign remarks is consistent with someone having delusional like symptoms.” [111] Dr. Dermer reviewed his telephone call with the Grievor’s family doctor, Dr. Wang, who had been her physician since July 2011. He stated that she “opined the patient is ‘genuinely paranoid’ and has a ‘persecution complex.’” She advised that the Grievor has “no insight” and “genuinely believes people are conspiring against her.” She believed that the Grievor has a “genuine psychiatric disorder” and feels “all problems are external to her.” [112] Appendix “A” is a 33-page, single-spaced description of the mistreatment the Grievor asserts occurred during her time with the MOF. [113] Dr. Dermer’s conclusions were as follows: Mrs. Morissette is a 55-year old who suffered from a psychosocial deprivation during her childhood and adolescence. There is also a family history of mental illness. Since the mid 1990’s the employee has encountered uninterrupted interpersonal difficulties in the workplace and extended periods of sick leave for psychiatric impairment. Her psychological and pharmacological treatment has been irregular as well as lacking in significant intensity and compliance. Mrs. Morissette’s insight is poor and limited to projecting the source of her difficulties almost exclusively onto her work environment, despite changes in employment sites. As a result of the above, Mrs. Morissette has not developed the stability and skills to carry out the essential duties of her job, even with an accommodation including a change in workplace setting. Currently she seems to be functioning reasonably well at home, without the average expectable stressors of her work duties. …. In the absence of adequate treatment, a return to work under any circumstances may present as a safety risk to herself. In summary, Mrs. Morissette is currently suffering from a psychiatric impairment which leaves her unfit to perform the essential duties of her job, with or without accommodation. Furthermore, her prognosis for the future for an extended return to work remains guarded, particularly if she does not respond to a more intensive - 27 - trial of treatment both combined with pharmacological and psychological intervention. [114] Based on this IME, Manulife reinstated her disability benefits. The Grievor has remained off work on LTIP since then. [115] The Grievor asserts, at para. 907, that during their July 15, 2011 session, Dr. Dermer “mentioned that Mr. Mastorakos was in contact with him. This supports my concern of management’s involvement in influencing Dr. Dermer’s report.” In his will-say, Mr. Mastorakos denies being in contact with Dr. Dermer’s office, except in sending the referral letter. In addition, the additional documentation requested by Dr. Dermer, was provided. In the IME report, there is no mention of Dr. Dermer speaking with Mr. Mastorakos. [116] In the Grievor’s view, at para. 776: “After 22 years of abuse I have experienced severe depression, anxiety and excruciating body pain which requires daily medication to try to overcome.” She seeks $10 million dollars in damages for her grievances. Her justification for this amount is set out in para. 570: Since management made the determination that a two (2) minute action of removing a rock charged such financial repercussion [a five-day suspension] I calculated that my request of 10 million dollars is well justified for the years of physical assaults, harassment, torture, racial discrimination and discrimination against me because of my disability; experiencing the actions of management working on constructive dismissal even if it pushed me to turn to violence such as suicide. [117] Mr. Mastorakos’ view is stated at paras. 71 and 73 of his will-say: In my view, we did everything necessary to accommodate the Grievor. Upon receiving her allegations of harassment in the workplace, we immediately referred those matters to the WDHP Advisor. Furthermore, we elected to have a fulsome MTO Waterloo office assessment completed to get an accurate depiction of the issues being alleged by the Grievor. … This is an unfortunate situation for everyone involved. I hope that this matter can be resolved appropriately and that all the parties can move on in an amicable way. The Grievor’s perception of events are unfortunate. I am aware that the Grievor has had to overcome a lot of personal issues, trauma, and hardships in her life. As such, I wish her all the best moving forward. - 28 - Reasons for Decision [118] This is an incredibly sad case – for the Grievor and her family, for management, for the Union which did its best to represent her, and for the Grievor’s co-workers. There is no question at all that the Grievor suffered significantly during her time at the MTO (and before at the MOF). Her testimony about the impact on her was very moving. The question is whether the Employer’s actions – or inaction when it had an obligation to act – caused that suffering. The onus is on the Union to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the harassment/discrimination occurred as alleged, and that the Employer failed to act appropriately. It must establish that it is more likely than not that what she alleges occurred took place. As stated in Re OPSEU(Press) and Ministry of Health & Long Term Care, 2007 CarswellOnt 9023 (Mikus), at para. 106: “Where an individual is claiming harm… he must establish direct causation, supported by medical evidence, between the employee’s symptoms and the Employer’s practices.” I. Harassment/Discrimination/ Poisoned Work Environment/Reprisal [119] On the evidence presented, I am not persuaded that the onus has been met. The only evidence of the many acts of alleged harassment is the Grievor’s testimony through her will-say statement supported by her daily diary entries and emails. The diary entries and emails, however, while contemporaneous and voluminous largely mirror her will-say. Although they do reinforce her perception of events, they do not provide independent corroboration. There was no testimony or emails from a co-worker, or even the Grievor’s husband, about any of the alleged harassment by the Team Lead, the DIC, or management. [120] There are many times when an individual’s testimony, without any further corroboration, may sustain the onus of proof. That is not the case here. This is because there is very persuasive medical evidence that the Grievor’s perception of what occurred is unlikely to be accurate due to her underlying medical condition. I set out the medical evidence, particularly as related by Dr. Dermer in the 2014 IME, in detail. There is, unfortunately, a very long history of the Grievor misperceiving events. From 2008 to 2014, the IMEs revealed that “she tends to jump to conclusions easily and attributes all blame to others, feeling harassed, targeted and victimized.” Her perceptions, while perhaps not “delusional” appeared to be “fairly paranoid.” She “reads into seemingly benign remarks” which is “consistent with someone having delusional like symptoms.” As her own doctor relayed, she is “genuinely paranoid.” Further, the same situation occurred when the Grievor worked for the MOF – first at the Brantford office, and then again, at the Kitchener office. The same pattern repeated itself at the MOT. Although Dr. Spivack, in 2010, cleared her to return to work at a different Ministry, he noted that the same issues could arise. And they did, pretty much from day one. There is no evidence that management at the MTO knew the medical reasons for the Grievor’s health reassignment – at least until the Grievor herself disclosed them. There is no basis to conclude that anyone at the MOF “passed the torch” of harassment and discrimination of the Grievor to Mr. Mastorakos. [121] I want to stress, very strongly, that it is not the fact that the Grievor has mental health issues that leads me to this view; it is the nature of those mental health issues. Specifically, the fact that she has, repeatedly and consistently, been - 29 - diagnosed as mentally ill with a paranoid and a persecution complex, with its focus on the workplace. The Grievor’s ability to accurately perceive and interpret her co- workers’ actions is fundamentally compromised by her medical condition. This fact, combined with the lack of any corroborating evidence, leads me to conclude that the Grievor’s testimony, standing alone as it does, under the specific circumstances of this case, does not sustain the Union’s onus of proof on a balance of probabilities standard. I am unable to conclude that what she perceived and alleges in terms of harassment, discrimination and poisoned work environment, in fact, occurred. [122] This situation distinguishes this case from Re TTC and ATU (Vito Stina), 2004 CarswellOnt 5165 (Shime), relied on by the Union. In that case, there was compelling testimony from several co-workers, and an acting supervisor, which corroborated the grievor’s claims of harassment. That evidence led the arbitrator to conclude at para. 245: “I have no doubt whatsoever that Mr. Zuccaro abused his authority and harassed Mr. Stina over a period of time, which humiliated him, frightened him, isolated him from his fellow employees and ultimately caused him to seek medical assistance and leave the workplace for a lengthy period of time because of a depressive medical condition.” None of that supportive evidence is present here. [123] In my view, the situation is more similar to Re National Grocers and UFCW Local 1000A (Grievance of TS), 2013 CarswellOnt 13065 (Swan). There, the Grievor sought to return to work after a psychiatrist determined that he had “no proof that his beliefs are delusional or that he had any risk of elevated violence.” He determined, “I do not find it terribly risky” for him to return to work. A year and a half earlier, a different psychiatrist determined that the Grievor had a “major mental illness” and posed an “unassumable risk to the workplace.” That assessment was done after what the Grievor described “as an escalating concerted campaign of harassment against him…” [124] The arbitrator stated at para. 25: “It is of course, as the Union points out, perfectly possible that the grievor was in fact being harassed and that this campaign against him was being mounted with a considerable degree of sophistication so as to never to expose the perpetrators to discovery. But on the balance of probabilities, that must be unlikely.” On the evidence before him, the arbitrator determined at para. 57, that “the Employer…had no choice but to continue to hold the grievor out of service, and, by way of accommodation of his disability or, if it were only a perceived disability, one perceived on reasonable and probable grounds, by supporting the payment of benefits under the long term disability plan.” [125] The Union argues that the Employer did nothing in response to the Grievor’s claims of harassment when she first reported them in July 2010. This assertion is not supported by the evidence. The Grievor’s claims were submitted by management to a WDHP Advisor who followed-up with the Grievor to obtain more information. The Grievor then withdrew her complaint in August 2010. This withdrawal was clearly the Grievor’s choice. As she told OPSEU Staff Representative Gennings, she wanted to take a “different approach” and therefore withdrew her claim. The Union cannot contend that the Employer “did nothing” about these claims when it was the Grievor who chose to withdraw them. - 30 - [126] The Grievor again began to complain about harassment, particularly by the Team Lead and the DIC in the Fall of 2010 into early 2011. Again, her claims were referred to the WDHP Advisor, and determined to be without basis in fact. The Employer, however, did not then disregard her claims. It decided to conduct an external workplace assessment of the Waterloo office. This was a logical next step – to independently assess the Grievor’s claims as well as look at the overall issues in the workplace. The Grace Shore investigation and report followed. [127] In my view, the Grace Shore report was a very thorough review of all the Grievor’s existing claims of harassment and discrimination. She reviewed the documents submitted in the WDHP investigation, spoke to the WDHP advisors, reviewed the Grievor’s diary entries, spoke extensively with the Grievor and nineteen other employees, including the DIC and the Team Lead. As evidenced by her report, I have no doubt that her review was thorough and independent. She found that no harassment occurred, but similar to the prior IMEs (of which she was unaware) and the subsequent ones, she found that the Grievor misperceived and misinterpreted the actions of her co-workers. I find that the evidence simply does not support the Union’s contention that management failed to act or take the Grievor’s allegations seriously. Her claim that they turned a “blind eye” and “deaf ears” to her complaints is not supported by the evidence. [128] The Grievor asserts, in her will-say, that the Grace Shore report supports her claim that her co-workers discriminated against her because she was French. There is one comment in the report that a co-worker found her speaking with her husband in French to be exclusionary. On an objective basis the Grace Shore report does not support the Grievor’s claim of harassment or discrimination on the basis of her French background. I am not persuaded that this one comment rises to the level of discrimination or harassment. [129] In Re OPSEU and Ministry of Health, 2019 CarswellOnt 11689 (Anderson), the Grievor was allowed a family accommodation to take his break between 8:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. to escort his young daughter to school. On one occasion, a co-worker asked him as he was leaving whether he should record that the Grievor was going for food on his break, and that the Grievor should ask everyone if they wanted something. The co-worker was fully aware why the Grievor was leaving at this time. It was alleged that the co-worker “deliberately attempted to single out and humiliate the Grievor in front of all staff for using his break for family status accommodation purposes…” The Arbitrator dismissed the claim, stating, at para. 48: I have no reason to doubt the Grievor experienced [the co-worker’s] conduct as harassment. In law, however, the question is whether on an objective basis the conduct can be viewed as harassment. The particulars describe an isolated incident which cannot reasonably be described as egregious. In my view, the particulars cannot reasonably support the legal theory advance by the Union. … [130] Likewise, here, the one comment that the Grievor’s conversing in French with her husband made that employee feel uncomfortable does not support the Grievor’s - 31 - conclusion that her co-workers in the office, and the Employer, harassed her and discriminated against her because she is French. [131] The evidence also supports the view that management took the Grievor’s claim of workplace violence – the hip check – very seriously. The day after she reported the incident to Ms. CW on November 9, 2011 – even though her story had changed from when it was initially reported – the Ministry launched a Workplace Violence investigation. It interviewed the DIC, the male witness (who had to be tracked down as he was an independent contractor), and the manager the Grievor initially reported the incident to on November 1, 2011. Significantly, that male witness did not support the Grievor’s version of events. His statement largely supported that of the DIC. He saw NO physical contact between the other person and the Grievor – he did not see her fall into the wall. When the police subsequently interviewed him in 2012, his statement remained the same – he saw no physical contact between them. Nor had the DIC made any physical contact with him, as the Grievor alleged. [132] I find it significant that this witness – who was identified by the Grievor as witnessing the DIC intentionally assault her – completely failed to support her version of the event. He is the only independent witness identified by the Grievor to any of her claims of harassment, and he did not corroborate her testimony. Quite to the contrary, he disputed it in all respects. [133] This incident, sadly, demonstrates how truly ill the Grievor is. She pursued a criminal charge against her co-worker, and then hired a lawyer, at a cost of over $5,000, to contest the conclusion of the investigation. The police reopened the investigation only to confirm the same testimony that the witness had given to the Employer initially – that nothing happened. This is an example of the Grievor’s insistence on her view of events when the reality is quite different. There is no evidence that the Employer “obstructed” this police investigation in any way. [134] Consequently, on the evidence, I am unable to accept the Grievor’s claims of harassment and discrimination, or a poisoned work environment. I have no doubt she believes that all of it occurred. Unfortunately, for the reasons outlined above, I am not persuaded that these incidents occurred as alleged, or that her perception of events may be relied upon. [135] In addition, to the extent that some of her claims may have actually happened – for example, the DIC speaking loudly to a client near her workstation, or sitting at her desk, or interacting with the Team Lead - they do not constitute harassment. It was the Grievor’s unsupported assumptions that their motivation for these actions was to cause her stress and harm that is unfounded in the evidence. Again, for the reasons set out above, I am not persuaded that the Grievor has met her onus to establish that she was the victim of harassment, discrimination or a poisoned work environment. [136] I am also unable to conclude that Mr. Mastorakos, or management, discriminated or harassed the Grievor. Management properly referred her complaints to WDHP Advisors when she first complained in July 2010 and it was the Grievor who withdrew them. When she again raised complaints, management again referred them to the WDHP advisor. When they were determined to be unsubstantiated, - 32 - management initiated the Grace Shore workplace investigation. Her complaints were not ignored, but properly referred to the WDHP, as required, and then to an external investigator. That external investigation was an appropriate response to the competing information management had received from the Grievor as well as the information received from other employees. In terms of loud discussions, management addressed that through an email to staff. Management repeatedly tried to get the Grievor to support her accommodation requests with medical evidence; she failed to do so. I find the fact that Mr. Mastorakos mistakenly responded to an email sent to him by the Grievor to be an isolated mistake, not an intentional disregard of her request not to contact her by email. The Grievor’s belief that Mr. Mastorakos, Ms. CW, Mr. Worby and others were attempting to force her to quit (and thereby constructively dismiss her) is simply not supported in the evidence. The evidence demonstrates that management attempted to respond to the Grievor’s claims in a professional manner, through required processes. [137] The Grievor also alleges reprisal for bringing the issues of discrimination, harassment and a poisoned work environment to the Employer’s attention. It is not clear what the alleged reprisal is. It appears to relate to the fact that the Grievor was given a non-disciplinary Letter of Counsel when she advised Jason Droog, District Enforcement Manager, instead of Ms. CW, about the “hip check” that occurred to the male contractor. That, in turn, relates to a prior direction to the Grievor, following the IME, that “if she continues to raise complaints in the workplace under WDHP she may be subject to discipline.” It is clear, from subsequent emails, that what that meant was that making false claims against co- workers would not be tolerated, and that any concerns had to be raised directly with Ms. CW. [138] In my view, the direction to the Grievor, as outlined in the Minutes of the October 17, 2011 meeting concerning the results of the IME, was poorly worded and may have led her to believe that she would face reprisal (discipline) if she submitted additional complaints. She was then given a non-disciplinary Letter of Counsel on November 2, 2011, when she advised Mr. Droog that the male contractor had been hip-checked by the DIC. I do not find this Letter of Counsel to be a reprisal for raising complaints of alleged harassment. It was based on her discussing the incident with Mr. Droog, instead of Ms. CW. The letter states: In discussing your concerns with Jason Droog, District Enforcement Manager, you openly ignored my direction to you and were insubordinate. In future, it is expected that you will contact me directly to discuss any allegations and it is also expected that you will provide clear and specific details of the reported incident that it may be appropriately reviewed. [139] Consequently, I am unable to conclude that the non-disciplinary Letter of Counsel constituted a reprisal for her raising a claim of harassment. This aspect of the grievance is also dismissed. - 33 - II. Reimbursement of Expenses: [140] To the extent the Grievor incurred expenses in connection with the IME that have not been reimbursed, the Ministry is to pay those expenses. Because it is unclear if the Grievor followed the proper procedures for submitting her expenses, I am unable to conclude that the Ministry intentionally withheld payment. I would note that when the Grievor’s LTIP payments had ceased, the Ministry put the Grievor on a paid leave of absence pending the conclusion of the second IME so that she would not be without income. It did not have to do this, as Manulife would have had to pay benefits retroactively if the IME determined that she was disabled. Yet it did so. Consequently, it seems that the non-payment of her expenses for the IME (parking, mileage etc.) was more likely than not an oversight versus an intentional act. III. Delay in the IME [141] There was a significant gap in time between when the Grievor’s doctor first cleared her to return to work, January 14, 2014, and the completion of the IME – about 11 months. There were many reasons for this. [142] First, it was completely reasonable for the Employer to require additional medical information given the length of the Grievor’s absence from work at the time – over two years - and the content of Dr. Wang’s January 14, 2014 note. That note simply stated that the Grievor was able to begin the return to work process, but “required placement in a different work location.” Nor was the matter assisted by Dr. Wang’s February 2, 2014 or March 2, 2014 clarifications. What she was suggesting – another health reassignment – would require significantly more medical information than Dr. Wang provided. [143] The matter was also complicated by the fact that the Grievor was on LTIP. This meant that the insurer, Manulife, had to be involved in the process as well. [144] In my view, under the circumstances, and the prior history – including an earlier health reassignment – it was reasonable to require an independent medical examination to assess more fully the Grievor’s ability to return to work. Once the Grievor consented to the IME in mid-May, the process moved relatively quickly. The Grievor selected Dr. Dermer on May 20, 2014. The Grievor’s initial intake took place on July 3, 2014. That meeting led Dr. Dermer to request additional documents which had been identified by the Grievor. He requested her attendance records and performance reviews for a period of seven years, which included periods that preceded her time at the MTO. He requested the Grace Shore report and Appendix “A” to a confidential memorandum of settlement. The first two requests took a bit of time to compile but were provided by August 14, 2014; the latter two raised confidentiality concerns which took some time to resolve. The Grace Shore report was provided on September 14, 2014. The release of Appendix A required the consent of the Union, and was provided on October 28, 2014. Consequently, while there was some delay in regard to these documents, I am not persuaded that the Employer improperly delayed supplying this information to Dr. Dermer, and thereby delayed the IME. I can appreciate that the Grievor was in limbo about her work status until the completion of the IME. In many cases, - 34 - such a delay would mean that the employee is without income. In this case, the Employer placed her on a paid leave of absence so her income was protected. This action ameliorated the impact of the delay, and again, under the specific circumstances, I do not find the delay to have been excessive. [145] There is also no evidence that Mr. Mastorakos improperly influenced Dr. Dermer, as the Grievor asserts. His only contact was making the referral. It is clear from his IME report that Dr. Dermer relied on the medical information before him and his own examination of the Grievor. I am unable to conclude that the Employer required the IME under “false pretenses” or that it was a “biased medical examination.” IV. Failure to follow OPS Return to Work Policies [146] The Grievor, throughout her will-say statement, asserts numerous violations of the OPS Return to Work policies. Although many of her claims involve her health reassignment to the MOT in 2010-2011, her grievance was filed on May 27, 2014. Any claims from 2010 to 2011 would not and could not be covered by this 2014 grievance. In terms of her attempt to return to work in 2014, the evidence submitted does not support a violation of the Return to Work policies and her claims of discrimination. As found above, the Employer’s decision to require the IME in 2014 was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances; the delay in supplying the additional information requested by Dr. Dermer was not excessive given the nature of documents requested; and, there is no evidence that Mr. Mastorakos improperly influenced the doctor. Conclusion: [147] For all of the reasons set out above, I am persuaded that the onus of proof has not been met, and the grievances must be dismissed, except for the reimbursement of her expenses in connection with the IME. [148] Even though I am unable to conclude that the onus of proof has been met, I do have a great deal of empathy for the Grievor; her testimony at the hearing, and throughout her will-say statement and documents, showed she experienced great anxiety in relation to work and great difficulties in her life. [149] Finally, to reiterate, this decision is non-precedential and may not be relied upon in any other case. Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 22nd day of February, 2021. “Randi H. Abramsky” Randi H. Abramsky, Arbitrator