From elastic!exorcist!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!iaw.on.ca!torn!hookup!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ax490 Mon Sep 18 06:43:27 1995 Xref: elastic ont.general:8029 Newsgroups: ont.general Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!iaw.on.ca!torn!hookup!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ax490 From: ax490@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Dirienzo) Subject: Re: Single Mothers By Choice (Ontelevision) Message-ID: Sender: ax490@freenet2.carleton.ca (Michael Dirienzo) Reply-To: ax490@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Dirienzo) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet References: <43b2i1$bqo@ionews.io.org> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:02:56 GMT Lines: 67 Ian D. Parson (iparson@twitch.io.org) writes: > On Tuesday, Sept. 26, 1995, on the CBC program called Witness they will > be highlighting a group called Single Mothers by Choice. The program is > called Ms. Conceptions. Here in Ontario it is on at 8:00 PM > ... > I don't know how much funding or from where Single Mothers by Choice > gets money, but I sure hope they don't get any from any of the levels of > government. > Thanks for posting this. I'll be watching and I'll have a bowl of nails handy in case I need something to chew on. GRRRRRR!! > Here is a newspaper article that ran about them: [read the original post to see the whole article - snip snip] > > Downey says raising a child solo today "isn't such a strange notion." > Indeed, in the past 30 years, the number of babies born to > not-married women - defined as never-married, widowed, divorced or > living common-law - has grown from 4 per cent of all births in 1960 > to about 25 per cent today, according to the Vanier Institute of the > Family in Ottawa. > Surprising to some, the majority of out-of-wedlock babies arent' > being born to teenagers. In 1990, 60 per cent of the unmarried > women who gave birth were age 20 to 29; 19 per cent were age 30-plus, > the institute says. I don't object to women raising kids on their own, as such. But look how these women make taxpayers, like the men that weren't good enough to be their husbands, pay for this self-actualization: > ... > Miranda, 36, and mother to much-planned-for Kira, now 3, says > "The government should be paying to help support these children, as > they are the country's future. Fortunately, Single Mothers by Choice, > a support group, has steered me towards all the government programs > out there." > Being a student again is tough economically, but Kira is in > subsidized say care and, in September, Miranda hopes to be back > working full-time. > ... > Stephanie Griffiths, 29, has two university degrees, but has > never had full-time work. > "If I were on welfare I couldn't survive, but thanks to having > daughter Zoe, I get mother's allowance which is substantially more > money." Mr. Harris! Oh, Mr. Harris! I found some more fraud for you to cut! > "For the most part, it's great," Miranda says. "Kira's a good > kid, really relaxed, and we have a lot of fun. I have been thinking > about having a second child and I think this is the way to go. It is > best for children, not to have the negative influence of a man in > their daily lives." Is it healthy for a little girl to be taught that men are a "negative influence"? What would happen if she had a boy? Call the CAS! With the power of state-run programs, these women seek to reduce men to sperm donors with big wallets. (I'll bet they use artificial insemination so that they don't have to take a man into their bed or give him any pleasure.) It's pretty hard for the average man, imperfect and impoverished by high taxes, to compete with a rich and generous state for the role of husband. -- "The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. | Mike Dirienzo It is not the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of | priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich." | Nepean, Ont. -- John Berger | From buddey@opus.freenet.vancouver.bc.ca Sun Feb 11 10:26:32 1996 Xref: elastic can.legal:6370 Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!light-house!innuendo.tlug.org!clio.trends.ca!worldlinx.com!coranto.ucs.mun.ca!hookup!torn!istar.net!news1.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!freenet.vancouver.bc.ca!buddey From: buddey@opus.freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Mike McIntyre) Newsgroups: can.legal Subject: McINTYRE vrs ROGERS - Judgment, long Date: 9 Feb 1996 23:38:33 GMT Organization: Vancouver Regional FreeNet Lines: 761 Message-ID: <4fgltp$g6e@milo.freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: opus.freenet.vancouver.bc.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] FEB 06 1996 No. C944451 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LOW BETWEEN: MICHAEL McINTYRE PLAINTIFF AND: ROGERS CABLE T.V. LTD. DEFENDANT Counsel for the plaintiff: Donald L. Richards Counsel for the defendant: Robert W. Grant Lise J. Kirchner Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia October 31, November 1-3, December 18, 20-22, 1995 1 The plaintiff, Mike McIntyre, Claims damages for wrongful dismissal on July 12, 1994 from his employment with the defendant. He was employed as a production co-ordinator at the defendant's community television studio in Richmond, B.C. His duties were both technical and artistic and included working with numerous volunteers who assisted as camera operators, producers, directors, interviewers and hosts of taped and live shows. Mr. McIntyre had been employed with the defendant since 1978, a total of sixteen years. The reason given for his dismissal was his failure to provide a written apology to a volunteer named Gloria Chang. Ms. Chang alleged on March 4, 1994 that Mr. McIntyre had twice racially harassed her and twice sexually harassed her, all four incidents having occurred during the previous month. 2 The defendant pleads that the dismissal was for cause, the sole cause being the failure of Mr. McIntyre to apologize to Ms. Chang as demanded by the defendant. 3 Ms. Chang is now 24 years old and pursuing a career in journalism. She is doing post-graduate studies in Ontario. Mr. McIntyre met her in the summer of 1992 when she spent a couple of months doing volunteer work at the studio; however, they did not develop a working relationship until January, 1994, Ms. Chang having returned to the volunteer work in the summer of 1993. Before she began to work with Mr. McIntyre she worked with other employees of the defendant, particularly Brian Bosworth with whom she developed a romantic relationship. Mr. Bosworth was in an obvious conflict of interest position, but there is no evidence of that operating to Mr. McIntyre's detriment. He did not participate in subsequent decisions made by their employer. 4 It is convenient to begin the narrative with the events immediately preceding Ms. Chang's complaint letter to the defendant of March 4, 1994. Mr. McIntyre was responsible for a monthly live community affairs program called "On the Line". A water quality issue was the subject of the February program and Ms. Chang hosted it. She and Mr. McIntyre were both interested in doing the March show on the topic of multiculturalism. There were said to be racial issues and tensions in Richmond which perhaps needed responsible public discussion. It was a very sensitive topic and required a cautious approach if the result was to be of any value to the community. 5 The mayor of Richmond was to be prominent in the March show, which also was to include live phone-in questions from, and comments by, members of the public. The mayor expressed some concern to Mr. McIntyre about Ms. Chang hosting the show. He said he had seen the February show and had serious doubts about her skills as an interviewer. He suggested that Jim Gallacher, a more experienced interviewer and host with whom the mayor was familiar, would be more suitable or, failing him, somebody else with more experience than Ms. Chang. 6 The mayor's concerns presented Mr. McIntyre with a dilemma. He know of Ms. Chang's enthusiasm for producing and hosting the show, but he tended to agree with the mayor's position. Mr. McIntyre has an unusual personality and management or leadership of other people is not one of his better skills. That has been made plain by Mr. Gallacher in his evidence and has been alluded to by others, although it is equally fair to say that this criticism and implied criticism of Mr. McIntyre was not made unkindly. 7 Mr. McIntyre did not carefully handle the dilemma he faced. In particular, his communication skills were lacking. Ms. Chang prefers to characterize his approach, both in her complaint letter and in her evidence at trial, as being untruthful and deceitful, but I have no doubt that she deliberately arrived at this condemnation of him for her own self-serving purposes. He was not devious, he merely put off making necessary decisions. He never acted out of improper motives. 8 Mr. McIntyre did arrange for Mr. Gallacher to host the March show. I accept his evidence that he still wanted Ms. Chang to play a role in production and perhaps as a second on-air host. It was a highly sensitive situation and he was both indecisive and dilatory in bringing the change to Ms. Chang's notice. 9 On March 1st, Mr. McIntyre and Ms. Chang discussed the show on the telephone at some length. She was unhappy about the slow progress in deciding on the content of the show and her production role. The show was scheduled to be aired mid- month. Mr. McIntyre told her about his conversation with the ;mayor and that he had recruited Mr Gallacher to host the show. I accept his evidence that she became very angry and hung up the telephone on him. 10 Ms. Chang called Mr. Gallacher, whom she barely knew and who had to be reminded that they had met. I accept his evidence that she immediately launched into hostile questioning of him about what had transpired to result in him becoming the host of the March show. Because she had called him on his business cellular telephone, he asked her to call him at his home that evening. She finished by telling Mr. G, forcefully, that Mr. McIntyre hadn't heard the end of the matter. On the whole of the evidence, I have no doubt that this comment was vengeful toward Mr. McIntyre , as was Ms. Chang's subsequent conduct. 11 Ms. Chang also telephoned an assistant to the mayor and got confirmation of the mayor's concern about her being the host of the March show. This would be a good point to observe that Ms. Chang is not shy about dealing with people, especially when her own interests are involved. She is intelligent, articulate, worldly and very capable of managing personal situations. She gave her evidence in full flight, always anxious to persuade with a never-ending series of loquacious answers. She never missed an opportunity to make clear to the court her view of Mr. McIntyre's credibility, both in his dealings with her and in his evidence before the court. At times she was evasive in cross examination, especially when asked to account for a comment she made to an employee of the defendant that she had been responsible for the firings of two people at another place or places she worked. 12 Ms. Chang next complained to Mr. Bosworth about Mr. McIntyre's decision with respect to the March show. She made no complaint about harassment. Mr. B told her that if she felt strongly enough about how she was treated with respect to the show she should write a letter of complaint. She drafted such a letter. Again, it included no complaint of harassment. Mr. B read her computer composition, told her it was too emotional and she should redraft it. The first draft has not survived but that may be because no hard copy was made of it. 13 Ms. Chang took until the following day to complete her letter of complaint. It is actually two letters of complaint. For reasons not clear from her evidence, she prepared a short letter stating that Mr. McIntyre's actions were "unethical and unprofessional". She added that, in connection with the "on the Line" show, he "withheld vital information and overtly lied when I asked him to discuss the show". She also complained about comments that made her uncomfortable. She attached a second letter with details. Both letters were addressed to Mr B who had counselled, if not assisted, her in their preparation. 14 In the longer letter, Ms. Chang describes the efforts of herself and Mr. McIntyre to put together the show on multiculturalism for the mid-February date and their decision to postpone the topic to the March show. 15 The letter describes the racial harassment complaints as follows: During the shooting of a story on Chinese books in the Richmond library, I noticed that a new volunteer who came along to learn how to use the equipment had a car phone. I asked him why. Mike said "Don't all Chinese people?" On one occasion while riding in the company van, Mike asked me if I found all Chinese people to follow very closely behind when they drove. I replied that I didn't find this to be true. I was uncomfortable with these generalizations, but I did not mention this to anyone at Rogers. 16 The first sexual harassment complaint appears in the ensuing paragraph: On Tuesday, February 15, 1994, I went ... with Mike ... to interview a man with the Department of Fisheries. As we were preparing for the shoot, I was asked to pull a small microphone through the inside of my clothes so that the wires would not show. Mike said, "Lucky Mike." I was very uncomfortable with this comment. Lee Nikl from the department of fisheries looked surprised and commented, "Obviously you are a lot more casual than the commercial stations". I was surprised, offended and also embarrassed. I said to Mike, "That's sexual harassment." Mike did not apologize nor take back his comment. Mike smiled and laughed. I again let this go. 17 The letter continues with a description by Ms. Chang of her efforts to prepare the multiculturalism show prior to the airing of the February show. Then she complains about the February show being ill-prepared and about a look Mr. McIntyre gave her just before she went before the camera: Also during this time, I realized I could not trust Mike to fully produce the show with adequate preparation as he passed on the bulk of producing February's edition of "On the Line' to me. I was not very happen with the outcome of this show as I did not feel we adequately prepared for it. I was also uncomfortable with the way he looked at me when I returned to the studio in a skirt and jacket. Mike gave me a long look and said that I "looked good." I, again let this pass because I felt people would not take my concerns seriously and I did not want to jeopardize the March show. During and after the show, Mike commended me on my performance. He said that I was being much too hard on myself. 18 The balance of this lengthy letter covers the dealings she had with Mr. McIntyre about preparing the March show and, in some detail, the discussion they had on March 1st. She concludes by writing: "What I find unacceptable is the way he deceived and overtly lied to me." 19 I have read this remarkable letter numerous times and am unable to discern from it, or from the evidence as a whole, how Mr. McIntyre lied to her or deceived her. As I have said, he had a dilemma and he was indecisive. The only things he might have told her about earlier were his discussion with the mayor and his recruiting of Mr Gallacher. The only "lie" she can point to in her letter or in her evidence is Mr. McIntyre telling her he had not thought about the show even though he had lined up Mr. Gallacher a week earlier. But even in the text of the letter, Mr. McIntyre's comment to her was in the context of production of the show, not the hosting of it. In any event, he was only putting her off, not lying to her. As I have already said, I accept Mr. McIntyre's evidence that he continued to want Ms. Chang to have some role in preparing and presenting the March show. 20 Ms. Chang gave copies of her letters to Mr. B and he delivered one to his superior, Lesley Wood Bernbaum. Ms. Chang put a copy of each letter on Mr. McIntyre's desk in the studio. He saw them when he went there about 3:00 a.m. on March 5th. (The studio is run informally and even paid employees are permitted to keep flexible hours.) 21 On March 8th, Mr. McIntyre met with the program and community relations manager for the Richmond studio, Lesley Wood Bernbaum ( who graciously consented to being referred to by the surname "Wood" as used by most of the other witnesses). They discussed the complaint but not, apparently, in depth. They looked at the unedited tape of the interview of Mr. Nikl which followed the "Lucky Mike" incident. Only the edited tape is available for viewing by the court. The unedited tape showing Ms. Chang's demeanour between the time of the comment and the commencement of the interview has not survived. Ms. Wood agreed with Mr. McIntyre's evidence that on the raw footage prior to the interview Ms. Chang appeared to be relaxed and comfortable. 22 Mr. McIntyre showed Ms Wood a letter to Ms. Chang that he had drafted. Although she made a negative comment about one portion of it, she did not tell him not to send the letter to Ms. Chang. 23 This two-page letter is dated March 8th. On the first page, to which the defendant takes no objection, Mr. McIntyre points out to Ms. Chang his concern about the topic of the March show and his acceptance of both the mayor's concerns and the necessity of the mayor's close involvement. He also quotes from an editorial, previously discussed by him and Ms. Chang, on the topic of racism in Richmond. The editorial challenges the mayor to resort to the media and to "soothe the savage beast". 24 The second page of the letter, which the defendant's human resource officers later criticized as being "threatening" of Ms. Chang, reads: Your pathetic attempt to summon the demons of racism and sexism to further your agenda is despicable. What a waste of journalistic training. Thank heavens there were witnesses. If I stated that the Chinese race was one of the most discriatory (sic) on the face of the earth would that upset you? Why then, pray tell can our Lieutenant- governer (sic) said it, and it didn't upset you in the least? (see MACLEAN'S article we discussed) - May I suggest that it wasn't convenient to be upset in this situation? Brians (sic) efforts at fanning, instead of containing this conflict during the labor dispute are reprehensible. And now to "SOOTHE THE SAVAGE BEAST", as the editorial goes - Judge not because you shall be judged by your very judgement - for the pit that has been dug shall [be] filled with those that have dug it. ("Brian" refers to Brian Bosworth and the "labour dispute" is a reference to an extended strike or lockout involving the defendant and its unionized employees, which did not include Mr. McIntyre.) 25 Attached to the letter are photocopies of the editorial and the MacLean's magazine article. In the article, the highly-respected David Lam, then (February, 1994) lieutenant-governor of this province, indeed is quoted as saying "The Chinese race is one of the most discriminatory in the world ..."; although in the context of the short article that clearly is not intended to be a controversial statement. 26 Without being specific, defence witnesses maintained that they viewed this letter as being threatening. I am unable to see how it could be so viewed by Ms. Chang or by anybody else. Threatening what? It has to be remembered that Ms. Chang's letters to the defendant threatened Mr. McIntyre's reputation and his livelihood in a sharp and forceful way. His response is mild in comparison and, unlike the more serious allegations in Ms. Chang's complaint, it is factual. Mr. McIntyre's letter may have a sophomoric style, but in it he does not threaten Ms. Chang in any way. 27 Ms. Wood met also with Ms. Chang on March 8th. She later reported to Linda Pavan at the human resources office of the defendant in Burnaby that she was unable to discern whether Ms. Chang's emotionalism stemmed from being removed from the March show or from the harassment she alleged. Having heard Ms. Chang's evidence, I have no hesitation in concluding that her complaint letter stems entirely from her removal as host of the March show. Mr. Bosworth testified that she was very upset about being removed as host of the show and her objective, although not Mr. Bosworth's, was to do the show with a co-ordinator other than Mr. McIntyre I reject Ms. Chang's evidence to the contrary. While she testified, I did not find her emotionalism to be genuine. From the beginning, she was motivate by a selfish ambition to be reinstated as host of the show and, failing that, a vengeful desire to cause Mr. McIntyre harm. I do not accept any of her evidence to the contrary. Where her evidence is in conflict with that of any other witness in this case, I reject her evidence. 28 On March 9th, Ms. Wood again met with Mr. McIntyre After taking notes of his views of Ms. Chang's complaint and conduct, she told him to take a few days off work. In the meantime, she reported the matter to the human resources office of the defendant. It came to the attention of Carol Gibson who is a vice-president of the company and in charge of that department. She assigned Ms. Pavan to investigate. Ms. Pavan had telephone conversations with Ms. Chang, Mr. Nikl and Christian Yau, a volunteer cameraman and the only independent witness to all four incidents. 29 It must be emphasized that the defendant made no effort to justify Ms. Chang's attack on Mr. McIntyre's honesty and integrity, either in dealing with the complaint internally or in these proceedings. I have already indicated that her complaint about his handling of the March show was unjustified. Her assertions that he lied to her and deceived her were simply not true. However, the defendant made no attempt to assess the truth of those assertions or to consider them when assessing the genuineness of, or the motivation for the harassment complaints. The defendant's investigation was seriously flawed in this respect. 30 On March 15th, Mr. McIntyre met with Ms. Pavan and Ms. Wood. Before that meeting, Ms. Pavan, having consulted with Ms. Gibson about what she had learned from Ms. Chang, Mr. Nikl and Mr. Yau, drafted a discipline letter directed to Mr. McIntyre. It seems that this was done at Ms. Gibson's direction and that she was involved in the letter's preparation. There is some dispute as to when Mr. McIntyre received the letter. He says it was at the meeting. Ms. Pavan and Ms Wood say it was delivered to him later. It matters not which recollection is correct. It is clear that the letter was all but complete before the meeting. One wonders about the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Pavan made notes before the meeting listing the disciplinary sanctions to be imposed. She testified that these were notes to herself if the meeting with Mr. McIntyre went "as we expected it would". I conclude that she did not approach the meeting with an open mind. It was highly improbable that Mr. McIntyre would be able to persuade her at the meeting that he had little or nothing to answer for or that Ms. Chang's credibility should be looked at in light of her ambition to be host of the March show. All his efforts to communicate his concerns about Ms. Chang's motivation and credibility were to no avail. His words fell on deaf ears because Ms. Gibson and Ms. Pavan, for reasons both unexplained and inexplicable, divorced the two issues and conducted their investigation of the harassment complaint with no regard to the far more serious complaint relating to Mr. McIntyre's preparation for the March show. 31 The discipline letter is dated March 15th. It does not mention the incident in which Mr. McIntyre told Ms. Chang that she "looked good". There is good reason for that exclusion. The comment was made just before Ms. Chang was to go on air, live, as host of the February show. It was nothing more than a normal, encouraging comment by a floor director (in which capacity Mr. McIntyre was then acting) to steady the nerves of those about to go before the camera. Nothing sexual was intended. Nor could any reasonable person so interpret the observation, even with Ms. Chang's attempts in evidence to make something of it. 32 The discipline letter states, in part: "The results of the investigation substantiate Ms. Chang's allegations that you made comments which were inexcusable, demeaning and discriminatory and which you knew, or ought to have known, would be offensive to Ms. Chang." It should be interjected here that the defendant does not now contend that Mr. McIntyre said anything to Ms. Chang or in her presence which he knew would be offensive to her. The only contention is that he ought to have known that his remarks would be offensive to her. 33 The letter states that Mr. McIntyre's behaviour constituted "harassment or discrimination". There is an added judgement that the letter he sent to Ms. Chang was discriminatory. I have already dealt with that letter. The defendant does not seem to now assert that Mr. McIntyre's letter was discriminatory and I am not persuaded that anybody could reasonably see it to be so. 34 The defendant suspended Mr. McIntyre from March 15th to March 21st and required him to prepare an "acceptable letter of apology to Ms. Chang". It also required him to attend a discrimination and harassment course at the Richmond studio. That course previously had been scheduled for all employees. Mr. McIntyre did not attend the course because of subsequent events, but he did receive substitute individual counselling and the defendant does not complain of any failure on his part with respect to this aspect of the discipline imposed. 35 Mr. McIntyre had an inconsequential meeting with Ms. Wood on March 22nd. On March 23rd they met again. He gave her a simple letter of apology addressed to Ms. Chang. It was acceptable to Ms. Gibson. It was never given to Ms. Chang. Had the defendant simply given it to her, apart from Mr. McIntyre's ongoing belief that he was not justly treated, that would have been the end of the matter. 36 I find that Mr. McIntyre's letter of apology was received by the defendant, was acceptable to the defendant and was in compliance with the discipline imposed by the defendant on March 15th. Intervening events did not change the situation. The defendant always had the apology letter. Mr. McIntyre never withdrew it. On this basis alone, his dismissal on July 12th for failing to provide an apology letter was wrongful. 37 The fly in the ointment was a letter Mr. McIntyre gave to Ms. Wood at the same time he gave her the apology letter. It has come to be known as the "Dear Lesley" letter. Mr. McIntyre says he gave it to her only because he believed she rejected his apology letter. He felt offended by the entire business and was agitated. It is apparent to me, and I have no doubt that it was apparent to Ms. Wood and later Ms. Gibson, that the Dear Lesley letter was nothing more than Mr. McIntyre letting off steam, as he told them and as he told the court. The letter reads: Dear Lesley; For your information; The present situation has been a stimulis (sic) for much discussion amount (sic) friends, volunteers, and cyberspace users. I even had an expression of interest from on (sic) of those tackey (sic) American type tabloid shows. The origional (sic) footage showing a very comfortable Gloria is available. It's a very hot topic now. I shall continue to make use of the community channel for the benefit of the City of Richmond wether (sic) as a Rogers employee or not. As you know I have just completed the sale of our VSE company to off shore interests so coin is of no consideration. Unless this episode is brought to an honourable conclusion I shall have no alternative but to sink the Rogers, McLean merger. How, why by magic of course. My preference however would be to use my talents with Rogers in helping steer thru the rough waters ahead. 39 I do not accept any suggestion in the defence evidence that this curious, perhaps juvenile, letter was of any reasonable concern to the defendant. It did not provoke any further discipline of Mr. McIntyre. The defendant did not fire him because of it. Ms. Gibson's response to it was to tell Ms Wood to ask Mr. McIntyre what he meant by the letter. As a result, all three of them had a one our meeting on March 30th. 40 The evidence about what took place at that meeting is not at all clear. But I got the distinct impression from Ms. Gibson's evidence that she viewed the Dear Lesley letter and Mr. McIntyre's comments at the meeting as being a lack of acceptance that he had harassed Ms. Chang or made racially discriminatory remarks in her presence. She seemed to be saying that the apology letter was acceptable by itself, but that the Dear Lesley letter and Mr. McIntyre's insistence that the Chang complaint was bogus somehow made it unacceptable. She insisted that she did not require the apology letter to come with Mr. McIntyre's agreement that he had discriminated against Ms. Chang. However, the defendant's conduct suggests the opposite. The defendant offers no sensible reason for continuing the dialogue after receipt of the acceptable letter of apology. Counsel for the defendant agrees that the defendant could only discipline Mr. McIntyre, not require him to accept the judgement rendered. He had only to comply with the discipline meted out and that is what he did. Eliminating from his mind a sense of being the victim of injustice could not be a condition of the defendant's acceptance of the apology letter or of Mr. McIntyre's continued employment. 41 Following the March 30th meeting, Mr. McIntyre did prepare and submit a second apology letter, but its elliptical and unfocused wording was not acceptable. What followed was a standoff, with more meetings and the defendant not allowing Mr. McIntyre to return to work and sending him various demand letters relating to an apology (which, as I have said, they already had). This led to a termination letter dated July 12th. 42 The termination letter, signed by Ms. Gibson, states: "Since you have not submitted an appropriate letter, your employment is terminated as of today". No other reason for the firing is given in the letter or argued in these proceedings. 43 In reasons given April 24, 1995, in an arbitration in Ontario under The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, The three-member Grievance Settlement Board set out some useful guidelines for investigation of complaints like those made in the present case. I quote in part from pp. 171-172 of this lengthy decision: Investigators must not just conduct fair investigations, they must conduct careful ones. ... witness statements were not taken, and a great many of the interviews were done on the telephone. One of the hallmarks of a careful investigation would be an investigatory file that documents each and every interview held; that contains, whenever possible, signed witness statements; and that includes a log of telephone calls made and received, as well as duplicate copies of receipts for any documents or other exhibits obtained. Not only would the discipline of a careful approach lead to better investigations, but it would also, where the sufficiency of the investigation and report was attacked after the fact, provide a sound evidentiary basis on which that issue could be determined. Finally, on this point, it seems to us that neophyte investigators should not be sent out unsupervised to conduct an investigation. Even a modest apprenticeship program would have prevented some of the investigatory abuses documented in this award. The employer had a duty to appoint a properly trained and qualified individual. Quite clearly, this obligation was not met. 44 These observations do not have the force of the law, but they are helpful in defining the inadequacy and the inherent unfairness of the defendant's investigation and determination of the Chang complaints. Those inadequacies are: (1) As already stated, separating the harassment complaints and the principal complaint for all purposes; (2) Conducting only telephone interviews of important witnesses, Mr. Nikl and Mr. Yau; (3) Taking no witness statements in writing, including from Mr. McIntyre and Ms. Chang; (4) Conducting no interview of Mr. Gallacher; (5) Making no enquiry as to the working relationship between Mr. McIntyre and Ms. Chang generally; (6) Maintaining a poor record of the investigation; (7) Deciding in advance of the meeting with Mr. McIntyre on March 15th what the discipline would be; (8) Not questioning Ms. Chang's credibility at any time despite the obvious concern that she might be making spurious allegations to further her own ambition and not addressing Mr. McIntyre's repeated assertions that she was doing just that; (9) Failing to establish that there was a pattern of harassment to justify discipline as extreme as that meted out; and (10) Failing to have Ms. Gibson, the final judge or Mr. McIntyre's conduct, interview any of the witnesses, and not providing her with a record of witness statements sufficient to permit her to make a fair and thorough decision in the absence of personal interviews by her of the witnesses. 45 It remains for the court to determine whether Mr. McIntyre was guilty of racial or sexual harassment as alleged by Ms. Chang; if so, to what extent; and, finally, whether the discipline imposed was proportional. 46 I am not going to review extensively the evidence about the three remaining incidents giving rise to the harassment complaints. The two "racial" incidents occurred in a van while Mr. McIntyre, Ms. Chang and Mr. Yau were driving to the Richmond Public Library to prepare a story about availability of Chinese language books in the library. Over a period of time prior to this, Mr. McIntyre and Ms. Chang had discussed racial issues preliminary to production of the show on that topic, including the editorial and the MacLean's article referred to above. It is in this context that the remarks Ms. Chang complains of must be judged. 47 I prefer Mr. Yau's evidence on these events to that of Ms. Chang. I regard him as an independent witness. He does not know Mr. McIntyre well and he was an impressive witness who demonstrated objectivity. He testified that in the van on the way to the library his cellular telephone rang an Mr. McIntyre asked "Don't all Chinese people have cellular phones?" and he answered "No, I actually have a lot of Caucasian friends who have phones". Mr. Yau, who is a young man of Chinese-Canadian origin, took the question in a friendly and joking way. He said that Ms. Chang did not seem at all phased by the exchange and she made no comment. 48 On the same trip, Mr. McIntyre, who was driving, asked Mr. Yau if all Chinese people drove too close to preceding vehicles. Apparently he saw a car tailgating the van or some other vehicle. Mr. Yau replied that it wasn't so and that he had a Caucasian friend who drove really close to other vehicles and "who scares the pants off of me". Again, Mr. Yau testified that this exchange was friendly "as two people discussing different things". Ms. Chang made no comment and did not appear concerned about what was said by Mr. McIntyre. 49 The evidence does not support the conclusion of racial harassment or discrimination reached by Ms. Gibson and Ms. Pavan. The exchanges between Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Yau were light-hearted and in the context of ongoing discussion of racial issues. I do not believe that they made Ms. Chang feel uncomfortable as she later complained and as she testified. 50 That leaves the "Lucky Mike" incident referred to in the detailed complaint letter. Mr. McIntyreikl testified for the defence that Ms. Chang seemed upset by the remark. Mr. Yau agreed that, in response to the remark, Ms. Chang said "That's sexual harassment, Mike", but in a casual, joking way. I prefer Mr. Yau's evidence. I think that Mr. Nickl was making more of the incident that it merited. His evidence was quite difference from that of the other three who were present. It was also different from what he told Ms. Pavan over the telephone, according to her notes. His evidence is not reliable. 51 Ms. Chang claims that she saw the comment by Mr. McIntyre to be a reference to himself, his nickname being Mike, not to the microphone which she passed under her upper clothing. She went so far as to claim in her evidence that the use of the word "lucky" meant to her that he was saying that he might get "lucky" with her in a sexual way. I do not believe this evidence. It approaches fancy. 52 I accept Mr. McIntyre's evidence that he does not know why he made the comment. There is evidence from him and others that he makes a point of trying to relax people just before they go on camera. He testified that he often used the same phrase with children before they went on camera, although he had not dealt with children in that respect for some time. There is no reason to believe that he made the remark other than impulsively and with reference to the microphone, not with reference to himself. I do not accept Ms. Chang's evidence that the incident made her feel uncomfortable on an ongoing basis. It was not the beginning, the middle or the end of a pattern of sexual harassment. It was an isolated incident that was transitory and relatively trivial. It could not form the basis of a conclusion of sexual harassment attracting discipline by an employer. 53 I conclude that Mr. McIntyre was improperly disciplined by the defendant. It follows that he was also wrongfully dismissed from his employment. 54 If discipline was necessary for the "Lucky Mike" comment, anything more than a warning letter was disproportionate. 55 Mr. McIntyre was entitled to reasonable notice of termination of his employment. His counsel argues that, having regard to all the factors set out in the authorities and notice periods in similar cases, the range is 16 to 24 months. Counsel for the defendant argues that 15 to 16 months is appropriate. 56 Mr. McIntyre was a long-time employee earning an annual salary of $41,125. I am unable to locate any evidence of his age, but I assume at termination he was in he early forties. His job as a production co-ordinator was fairly well-paying but it did not involve an unusual amount of responsibility. However, it did require creativity, community interest and co-ordination of the efforts of a variety of people. I think 16 months is a suitable notice period. 57 There is no suggestion of any failure on the part of Mr. McIntyre to mitigate his damages. He was unable to find similar employment and I calculate damages at $54,833.33. 58 There is some evidence of additional employee benefits, but I can find no note of submissions about them. If there is a claim for additional damages arising from loss of such benefits, I will hear further argument, failing agreement between the parties. 59 Although the investigation of the Chang complaint was badly flawed, the evidence falls short of supporting the conclusion that the defendant acted toward the plaintiff with malice, vindictiveness or bad faith as required to prove aggravated or punitive damages: see Vorwis v. I.C.B.C. (1989) 58 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (S.C.C.). I have no doubt that the defendant's personnel officers were well-intentioned in their handling of the difficult situation they faced upon receipt of the Chang complaint. 60 Mr. McIntyre will recover costs. Vancouver, British Columbia February 6th, 1996  From lloydl@the-wire.com Mon Mar 11 07:11:44 1996 Xref: elastic can.gov.general:2060 can.taxes:1766 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!gts!whome!infoshare!istar.net!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!echo.the-wire.com!news From: lloydl@the-wire.com (Lloyd Lindsay) Newsgroups: can.gov.general,can.taxes Subject: Re: Child Support tax action - UNFAIR! Date: Sun, 10 Mar 96 23:59:28 GMT Organization: Lloyd Lindsay - Chartered Accountant Lines: 54 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lloydl.the-wire.com X-Newsreader: Quarterdeck Message Center [1.1] On Wed, Mar 6,96, Paul Bennett wrote: > This change in the child support tax rules is grossly unfair. > > Women's groups have complained about dead-beat dads and child poverty, > so the government decides to give them tax releif for the amount of > the payments. > > Meanwhile non-custodial parents (NCP), like myself, now must assume > the burden of increased taxes. You're right. The proposed legislation is grossly unfair to the non-custodial parent (almost always a MAN) for the following reasons: 1. The payer (almost always a man) gets no tax deduction - even though he is maintaining TWO households. At the very least, a parent paying alimony should have the marital tax credit. 2. The receiver (almost always a woman) pays no tax on the child support money she receives and you must pay it after deducting income tax. 3. She will receive non-taxable Child Tax Benefits if her income is low. You don't. 4. She gets to deduct Child Care Expenses from her taxable income - but you the payer don't. 5. She gets the Equivalent to Married Income Tax Credit, but you don't - notwithstanding that you are the one paying for the child's support. 6. Because of the new legislation, the payer (almost always a man) will have to pay substantial legal fees to get the courts to reduce the payments. Otherwise, his additional income taxes will prevent him from making the required support payments. I agree with your position and sympathize with you. So I've forwarded your original E-mail letter to Preston Manning, leader of the Reform Party - Canada's only opposition. His E-mail address is: leader@reform.ca ---- Cheers, LLOYD LINDSAY - Chartered Accountant a.k.a. iceman or labish e-mail: lloydl@the-wire.com ********************************************************* It's not what you know or who you know; it's both. Iceman has spoken. ********************************************************* From Mike.Jebbett@p1.f47.n340.z1.fidonet.org Tue Mar 12 07:50:42 1996 Xref: elastic can.politics:51134 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!gts!whome!infoshare!istar.net!news1.vancouver.istar.net!news.vancouver.istar.net!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!helix.net!news.cyberstore.ca!news.bctel.net!nntp.pinc.com!news.spydernet.com!f13.n340!f303.n340!f47.n340!not-for-mail Newsgroups: can.politics Distribution: world X-Comment-To: Mark Zajac From: Mike Jebbett Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 15:04:57 -0800 Subject: March 8 International Whiner's Day Message-ID: <88482551@p1.f47.n340.z1.ftn> Organization: Mike's point system X-FTN-AREA: CAN.POLITICS X-FTN-Tearline: PPoint 1.90 X-FTN-Origin: Mike's point system (1:340/47.1) X-FTN-SEEN-BY: 340/13 47 303 X-FTN-PATH: 340/47 303 X-FTN-PATH: 340/13 Lines: 42 On (08 Mar 96) Mark Zajac wrote to All... MZ> After the federal budget was announced, Sunera Thobani, demanded that MZ> the federal government add $50,000,000 to be given to women's MZ> organizations specifically to fight "male violence against MZ> women" and said that if they did not give these groups this money MZ> that the federal government would be directly responsible for all MZ> attacks and murders of women. The Status of Women is nothing less than a hate group, and I'm surprized as hell that the government is still giving money to these cretins. Just imagine the outcry if they gave money to groups that promote the white race? At the end of 1991, the government sponcered "Panel Report on Violence Against Women was completed". This report cost the TAX PAYERS of Canada in excess of Ten (10) Million dollars, and as is reported in the appendix of the report, was done under the direction of feminist organizations. The report studied violence against women and girls only, and valuable info which was discovered on the rate of female violence against boys [and men] was omitted. This report is widely regarded as propoganda, and is not taken as legitamate research by anyone but the feminist groups that helped put it together. As it stands today, Men lead as 'victims of violence' in EVERY catagory, save for sexual assaults; however even this is called into question when rates of sexual assaults of male prisoners are included. [A study was done on the levels of prison rape in California State prison] There is little doubt that the agenda of the Status of Women as lead by Sunera Thobani, and the the Canadian Labor Congress as lead by Nancy Riche, is to promote the idea that men are inheriently inferiour, and that women require special protection and rights. These people are hatemongers and do not deserve to be taken seriously by either the general public or federal/provincal governments. They serve no useful purpose; rather they put a wedge between men and women, and in effect deepen the gap of trust between us. From pbennett@bnr.ca Thu Mar 14 00:51:48 1996 Xref: elastic can.gov.general:2077 can.taxes:1811 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!uniserve!van-bc!xenitec!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!bmerhc5e.bnr.ca!NewsWatcher!user From: pbennett@bnr.ca (Paul J. Bennett) Newsgroups: can.gov.general,can.taxes Subject: Re: Child Support tax action - UNFAIR! Date: 12 Mar 1996 17:48:34 GMT Organization: Bell-Northern Research Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <313e4024.7547085@news.easyinternet.ca> <4i2rk5$nkm@como.mediaglobe.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: bmermba8.bnr.ca In article <4i2rk5$nkm@como.mediaglobe.net>, Luitucci@the.connection.com (Luigi Tucci) wrote: > >Remeber that this change affects custody orders or agreement entered >into after May 1997. So if you are currently paying child support and >deducting the payments, it will not affect you. > >Luigi >In individuals, insanity is rare; among crowds, it is the norm -====================================- Luigi, Reality check! The changes also apply if the custodial parent petitions the court to ask for this "tax free" money. Do you really think that there aren't women out there who are just waiting make this cash grab and drag the hubby through the courts? I fully expect to be in the courts to answer her petition for changing taxes, but it'll cost me. Why? Because she gets legal aid and the weight of government behind her, I have to pay my own lawyer - in fact, I might even be obliged to pay a portion of her court costs. It may result in a lower CS payment, but not after I (and many other fathers) are dragged through the courts, drained financially, and made to suffer. Isn't the resulting tension a healthy environment to expose the kids to, eh? If the government wanted to be a bit more fair, they would make it absolutely non-retroactive - unless both parties consent. But, then the women's groups driving this change aren't really interested in fairness, but revenge. Regards, Paul -- pbennett@bnr.ca | The opinions expressed in this post | are my own From pbennett@bnr.ca Thu Mar 14 00:51:51 1996 Xref: elastic can.gov.general:2078 can.taxes:1812 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!herboid!whome!infoshare!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!uniserve!van-bc!xenitec!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!cunews!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!bmerhc5e.bnr.ca!NewsWatcher!user From: pbennett@bnr.ca (Paul J. Bennett) Newsgroups: can.gov.general,can.taxes Subject: Re: Child Support tax action - UNFAIR! Date: 12 Mar 1996 18:03:35 GMT Organization: Bell-Northern Research Lines: 99 Message-ID: References: <313e4024.7547085@news.easyinternet.ca> <313F653B.5DDA@nbnet.nb.ca> <4hr5h8$m4e@kryten.awinc.com> <4i4b9u$9j4@felix.junction.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: bmermba8.bnr.ca In article <4i4b9u$9j4@felix.junction.net>, plett@junction.net wrote: >>> >> >>Buzz! >>Wrong! >> >>Married couples can plan appropriate tax strategies to their joint >>benefit: child care costs, spousal RRSPs, transfer of credit amounts, >>claiming dependents, etc. Married couples are in a better position to >>jointly manage their taxes and expendatures. >> >> > > >Divorced couples can also do this. The custodial parent can still deduct >child care costs if they are employed. This could be of better advantage >to a divorced couple if the custodial parent has had the higher income. >Only the lower income spouse can claim child care expenses. Divorced >couples would rarely ever be worse off with respect to child care >expenses compared to when they were married. (Unless one parent didn't >work, in which case I would assume there would be no child care expenses >anyway.) > Shawn, Divorced couples cannot do this legally. They are taxed as individuals - PERIOD. If you don't belive me, ask Revenue Canada. Do you think I would pay more taxes these past years than I would have to?!! Revenue Canada only allows the custodial parent to claim childcare expenses - not matter what their income. They also get the full equivalent to married amount. It is also the custodial parent who is the only one allowed to apply for the child tax credit payment. THAT IS THE LAW! >The custodial parent can also claim equivalent to spouse once they are >divorced. I am not sure what other credit amounts you are talking about, >but there really are not many others that people generally qualify for. >There is no change in transferring tuition. The tution transfer defaults to the custodial parent unless she is willing to transfer it to the non-custodial parent. > >As far as spousal RRSP"s are concerned both couples can still contribute >to their own RRSP'S and obtain a current tax benefit. The only benefit >with a spousal RRSP is if a higher income spouse can contribute, and the >down the road the lower income spouse takes it out when it is taxed at a >lower rate. To take advantage of this people just have to get married >again (but why would you marry for tax purposes?) Spousal RRSPs give married couples the advantage and power of joint savings, plus the opportunity for the higher income earner to shift a portion of their salary and taxes. A divorced couple is not allowed to do that. Again, it is well defined by Revenue Canada. > >Technically divorced or separated couples were in a better position to >manage their tax situation. (if they could get along long enough to >figure out how). The new rules level the playing field a little more. Please explain. If the mother gets all the tax benefits plus tax-free support, what break does the father get? NONE! Revenue Canada allows no middle ground. The only way a divorced or separated couple could make things work with minimal stress is if she were willing to make the payments low enough to avoid being a burden on the man. But, then, amicable splits aren't exactly in the majority, are they? > >Why should married couples be penalized for staying together. I have >seen too many couples who want to take advantage of being separated even >though they were not. I have to tell them its not legal. But they are >usually right. If you calculate their taxes as a separated couple 9 out >of 10 times they are better off(or so it seems) I don't see how you think married couples are penalized. Do you think it is something I aspired to? Do you think it is really financially attractive? Think again! I'd gladly switch places with a happily married couple any day! A married couple have the benefit of being only obliged to run a single household, combined income, being able to coordinate tax and financial strategies to mutual benefit, both being able to spend as much time as they like with the kids, no legal costs, court costs, etc. My income, although the same, is effectively reduced by 60% after paying CS and maintaining a separate dwelling. With the tax change, it will be erroded further. Regards, Paul -- pbennett@bnr.ca | The opinions expressed in this post | are my own