FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

[91] The applicant also submitted that it was significant that Ms. Roehl recorded in anentry dated July 3, 2007 that “there was no response to harassment/discrimination ashe never used these words”. Ms. Roehl initially had testified that she transcribed heroriginal contemporaneous notes. The applicant then brought to her attention that thisentry for July 3 records a reference to discrimination and harassment that clearlypredates September 21 which is the date the respondent maintains the applicant firstraised these allegations. Ms. Roehl then testified that her notes were written in amanner that responds to the allegations raised in the Application and her use of thephrase “there was no response to harassment/discrimination as he never used thesewords” is in response to the allegation of harassment and discrimination raised by theapplicant in his Application.2012 HRTO 1455 (CanLII)[92] The applicant also noted that a copy of the August 31, 2007 return to work planthat was disclosed by the respondent includes a hand written note in the margin stating“Sam, Jerry report to the above until the issue ___[unknown word] harassmentdiscrimination allegations by the co. render a decision.” The applicant submits this isalso significant as it is a document that refers to harassment and discrimination thatpredates when the respondent submits the applicant first raised the allegation ofharassment and discrimination.[93] I do not find these documents corroborate or support the applicant’s position. Iaccept Ms. Roehl’s testimony that she prepared her notes for the purposes of theTribunal process and I do not make the inference that she transcribed her notes in orderto alter the notes that she did make on June 4. I also find that the way all of her notesare written indicate that they are written as responses to the applicant’s allegations ascontained in his Application. I do not agree that the reference to harassment anddiscrimination made under a July 3 entry indicates that the applicant used these wordsin the entry she would have originally made on July 3.[94] I accept the testimony that the margin notes on the August 31 document were, infact made, in September when the August 31 document was being discussed. Themargin notes explicitly refer to the decision that the applicant would report to Sam and29