FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

Jerry while the respondent responds to the applicant’s allegations of discrimination andharassment, a decision that was clearly made in September not August.[95] In summary, I do not find that Mr. Castellano harassed the applicant during theirmeeting on May 22 given, most importantly, that I find Mr. Castellano’s generaldescription of what occurred to be credible and the evidence the applicant states helpscorroborate his account, namely that he told a number of persons of this harassmentdoes not support his version of what happened. I make the further finding that there isno persuasive evidence that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on thebasis of his age.2012 HRTO 1455 (CanLII)[96] I would note here that the applicant’s complaint to the respondent in Septemberwas that he had been harassed and discriminated against by Mr. Castellano. Therewas some ambiguity as to what discrimination the applicant was referring to, whether hewas alleging only that Mr. Castellano’s harassing comments on May 22 werediscriminatory or whether he was making a broader complaint, that Mr. Castellano’sactions during April and May constituted discrimination in addition to the harassingcomments Mr. Castellano made on May 22. I have, for the purposes of this section ofmy Decision, considered only the issue of the alleged May 22 comments and whetherthey were discriminatory. I have already determined that there was a failure toaccommodate the applicant in April and May that constitutes discrimination. I furthernote that when the respondent investigated the applicant’s complaint of harassment anddiscrimination after September 21 it considered both the Mr. Castellano’s comments onMay 22 and the respondent’s actions in general.4) Did the respondent meet its duty to investigate the applicant’s complaint ofharassment and discrimination under the Code?[97] The Tribunal has held that a respondent has a duty to investigate complaints ofdiscrimination or harassment; that the duty to investigate is the means by which anemployer ensures that it is achieving the Code mandated responsibility of operating adiscrimination free environment (see Laskowski, para 53). A failure to take reasonable30