FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

[99] I note in relation to the first element identified in Laskowska that the respondenthas a Code of Ethics that refers to the principle of carrying out business with respect forindividual rights to equality and non-discrimination. This policy addresses a broadrange of ethical issues with a brief reference to the principle of non-discrimination. Allemployees are required to acknowledge that they have received, read and understoodthe Code of Ethics and agree to comply with its requirements. It does not identify aspecific complaints process.[100] Mr. Zbaraschuk testified that employees are aware that they can makecomplaints to their supervisor or to human resources and that this information isprovided during the orientation provided to new employees. In my view the respondentwould, like most employers, have benefited from a specific anti-discrimination policywith an established complaints mechanism that more explicitly indicates the rights andresponsibilities of employees. However, I am of the view that the question of whetherthe respondent met its duty to investigate in this case turns on how the respondentresponded to the applicant once he made his complaint.2012 HRTO 1455 (CanLII)[101] I find that the respondent’s response to the applicant’s allegations of harassmentand discrimination made on September 21, 2007 was reasonable. Mr. Zbaraschukrequested the applicant’s allegations in writing which he received on September 24. Hemet with the applicant on September 24 and indicated that the applicant did not have toreport to Mr. Castellano pending the outcome of Mr. Zbaraschuk’s investigation of theapplicant’s allegations. Mr. Zbaraschuk interviewed all the persons that the applicantidentified may be aware of his allegations by, it appears, October 1. These effortsindicate, in my view, that the respondent took the applicant’s allegations seriously andacted sensitively and promptly.[102] The applicant raised a concern that the investigation moved slowly betweenSeptember and December but I am satisfied that the delay in the respondent preparingand issuing its investigation report was reasonable given Mr. Zbaraschuk, a seniormanager for the respondent, had other duties during this period which required him tobe out of Ontario. I further note that the applicant was absent from the workplace during32