Docket: T-975-13
Citation:
2015 FC 121
Ottawa, Ontario, January 26,
2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
PINAKI RANJAN BHATTACHARYYA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
VITERRA INC.
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Pinaki Ranjan Bhattacharyya seeks judicial
review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissing the
discrimination complaint that he brought against his former employer, Viterra
Inc. The Commission found that the evidence did not support Mr. Bhattacharyya’s
claim that his employer had treated him in an adverse differential manner, or
that it had harassed him and terminated his employment because of his colour,
his race, or his national or ethnic origin.
[2]
Although he does not use this terminology, I
understand Mr. Bhattacharyya’s argument to be that the Commission’s
investigation was insufficiently thorough, and that its decision to dismiss his
human rights complaint was unreasonable.
[3]
While I have carefully considered
Mr. Bhattacharyya’s submissions, he has not persuaded me that there is a
basis for this Court to intervene in the Commission’s decision. Consequently,
Mr. Bhattacharyya’s application for judicial review will be dismissed.
I.
Background
[4]
Mr. Bhattacharyya is an Information
Technology (IT) Project Manager of Indian descent. He worked for Viterra Inc.
(“Viterra”, formerly known as the Saskatchewan Wheat Board) from January 7,
2010 until April 12, 2011. While working at Viterra, Mr. Bhattacharyya
reported to Don Conly, the company’s IT Director.
[5]
In 2009, Viterra began outsourcing its IT
services to call centres based in India. The company then held a number of
meetings and seminars to assist its employees in managing this transition.
[6]
On October 6, 2010, Insights Discovery, an
external third party, facilitated a workshop on communication styles for
Viterra’s IT managers. During the session, the Insights facilitator, Connie
Phenix, sought to explain how different personality profiles affect the way
that individuals, particularly individuals from different cultures, handle
situations.
[7]
The parties disagree about what happened at the
training session.
[8]
Mr. Bhattacharyya says that Donna King,
Viterra’s IT Director for North America, went on a “rant”
against Indian culture at this session, making comments such as “there is something wrong with the culture of these people”.
Mr. Bhattacharyya says Ms. King’s tone implied that Indian culture
was “tardy and inefficient”, and that she made
negative comments about delays leading up to the Commonwealth Games which were
being held in India around that time.
[9]
Mr. Bhattacharyya says that Mike Nugent, an
IT Director, “joined the cultural assault against India” by making a pejorative reference to the caste system, something that had no
relevance to the training.
[10]
In his memorandum of fact and law,
Mr. Bhattacharyya says that “30 pairs of eyes kept
tracking my emotional status with frequent glances which I could feel – as I
was the only person of Indian origin in the gathering”. According to
Mr. Bhattacharyya, the silence of everyone else in the room “appeared to [him] as a statement of solidarity in their
feeling against Indian culture”. This perception made him feel
vulnerable as his job required support from, and collaboration with all of the
people who were present.
[11]
Ms. King denied that she had gone on a “rant” against Indian culture. According to Ms. King,
she had shared a personal anecdote regarding an experience that she had had at
an airport in India. She says that she did so in an attempt to illustrate
cultural differences, and how personality profiles affect how people respond to
these differences – something that was directly relevant to the training
session.
[12]
Other witnesses in attendance at the training
session did not recall Ms. King making the comments attributed to her by
Mr. Bhattacharyya, nor did their evidence support his claim that Mr. Nugent
had made a derogatory remark regarding the caste system.
[13]
Mr. Bhattacharyya did not object to the
statements during the training session, nor did anyone else express any concerns
with respect to the comments that were being made. In particular, nothing was
said by Ms. Phenix, or by Selina Haines, Viterra’s Manager of Human
Resources, who also attended the training session. After the session, however,
Mr. Bhattacharyya sent an email to Ms. Haines expressing a concern
about how India and Indian culture had been portrayed at the training session.
Mr. Bhattacharyya also sent a copy of this email to Mr. Conly and to Mike
Brooks, Viterra’s Chief Information Officer.
[14]
Mr. Bhattacharyya asserts that
Mr. Books then called him and apologized for the employees’ “wrongdoing” at the Insights session. According to
Mr. Bhattacharyya, Mr. Brooks said that he would address the issue at
an upcoming “town hall” meeting, but that this
never happened.
[15]
Viterra denies that Mr. Brooks ever
committed to addressing the situation at the “town hall”
meeting. According to Viterra, what Mr. Brooks said in his discussion with
Mr. Bhattacharyya was that if Mr. Bhattacharyya’s allegations were
true, then the employees’ behaviour was unacceptable.
[16]
Ms. Haines also responded to
Mr. Bhattacharyya’s email. She sought to understand what happened during
the session, including where and when it had gone “off
the rails” as far as Mr. Bhattacharyya was concerned. Ms. Haines
also asked Mr. Bhattacharyya to help her increase her own awareness so
that she could better lead the team, and commended Mr. Bhattacharyya for
writing the email, acknowledging that it must have been difficult for him to do.
[17]
Ms. Haines said that she asked Mr. Bhattacharyya
directly if he felt that he had been discriminated against, to which he said “no”. Mr. Brooks and Ms. Haines also asserted
that Mr. Bhattacharyya did not raise any further concerns regarding the
training session with either of them, and that they had understood that the
matter had been resolved.
[18]
However, Mr. Bhattacharyya says he felt
that “aggravated hostility” followed him after the
training session and its aftermath, and that Viterra did nothing to make him “feel safe”. In particular, he asserts that his
supervisor, Mr. Conly, treated him in an adverse differential manner
because of his Indian origin.
[19]
Examples of adverse differential treatment cited
by Mr. Bhattacharyya included Mr. Conly’s repeated expressions of
distaste for Indian food, and his pejorative tone when speaking to
Mr. Bhattacharyya. Mr. Bhattacharyya also says that Mr. Conly
did not appreciate his work, and that he fired an employee of Indian descent
who had been working under Mr. Bhattacharyya, without first discussing the
dismissal with Mr. Bhattacharyya.
[20]
Mr. Bhattacharyya also objected to a
statement allegedly made by Mr. Conly that a colleague, Debbie Petz, was
nervous about her upcoming trip to India. Finally, Mr. Bhattacharyya felt
insulted when Mr. Conly said a particular project of his was a “thankless job”, feeling that Mr. Conly was “trashing all [his] effort and dedication”.
[21]
Mr. Bhattacharyya further claimed that his
performance had been unfairly evaluated by Mr. Conly. Although Mr. Conly
subsequently agreed to increase Mr. Bhattacharyya’s performance rating for
the period between January 2010 and December 31, 2010, Mr. Bhattacharyya
says that he remained unsatisfied with the evaluation and wanted
Mr. Brooks to review his performance rating. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Conly thwarted his efforts to meet with Mr. Brooks, and tried to
bribe him to withdraw his appeal by promising a better score on the next
evaluation.
[22]
Viterra terminated Mr. Bhattacharyya’s
employment, without cause, on April 12, 2011. Mr. Bhattacharyya says that
the dismissal was carried out in a humiliating fashion, as he was not allowed
to return to his desk to collect his belongings. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya,
his dismissal was an act of reprisal for his past complaints, and a pre-emptive
strike designed to prevent him from meeting with Mr. Brooks regarding his
performance evaluation. Mr. Bhattacharyya further alleged that the
dismissal was a result of Viterra management’s “aggravated
hostility” towards his culture and national origin.
[23]
Viterra says Mr. Bhattacharyya was
dismissed for performance-related reasons, explaining that he had failed to
respond to concerns raised during his performance evaluations. In particular,
Viterra contends that Mr. Bhattacharyya had difficulty accepting constructive
criticism, and in influencing his subordinates to move in the direction desired
by management.
[24]
Mr. Bhattacharyya also claimed that he was
the only individual of Indian descent who worked in IT management for Viterra. He
said the only other individuals of Indian national origin who worked at
Viterra’s Regina office were brought in as technical resources in contract
positions, and that they were only hired after Viterra signed contracts with
Hewlett Packard and Infosys in late 2009.
[25]
Viterra responded that 25% of Mr. Conly’s
employees were in fact of Indian descent, and that two of these individuals
were in management positions. Viterra adds that 50% of the employees physically
working in the Regina IT department were of Indian descent at the time in question,
although it did not indicate what percentage of these employees were
contractors, rather than employees.
II.
Mr. Bhattacharyya’s Human Rights Complaint
[26]
After the termination of his employment,
Mr. Bhattacharyya filed a complaint under sections 7 and 14 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, with the Canadian Human Rights
Commission in which he alleged that Viterra discriminated against him on the
basis of his “cultural and national origin”. Mr. Bhattacharyya
alleged that Viterra:
a.
failed to provide him with a harassment-free
workplace, based upon Ms. King and Mr. Nugent’s alleged remarks at
the Insights training session, and Viterra’s alleged inaction subsequent to his
complaint;
b.
subjected him to adverse differential treatment,
again as a result of Viterra’s lack of response to his complaint about the
training session; and as a result of Mr. Conly’s alleged remarks and
behaviours, including his comments about Indian food, Mr. Bhattacharyya’s job
being “thankless”, Mr. Bhattacharyya “acting smart”, and his dismissal of Mr. Bhattacharyya’s
subordinate without first consulting Mr. Bhattacharyya;
c.
downgraded his performance review and then
terminated his employment because of his national origin.
III.
The Commission Investigation
[27]
After Mr. Bhattacharyya filed his human
rights complaint, the Commission obtained a written response to the complaint
from Viterra. The Commission investigator then reviewed relevant documentation
and interviewed eight individuals, including Mr. Bhattacharyya and Ms. Phenix.
Six Viterra employees were also interviewed: Mr. Brooks, Ms. King, Ms. Haines,
Mr. Conly, Mr. Nugent and Ms. Petz, although at the time of the
interviews, four of these individuals (Ms. King, Mr. Conly, Mr. Nugent
and Ms. Petz) no longer worked for Viterra.
[28]
The investigation concluded with a report dated
December 31, 2012. The report, which is some 17 pages and 116 paragraphs in
length, contained a detailed discussion of the evidence and an analysis of each
of Mr. Bhattacharyya’s allegations. The report concluded with the
recommendation that the Commission dismiss the complaint because the evidence
did not support Mr. Bhattacharyya’s claim that he had been treated in an
adverse differential manner, harassed and terminated from his employment
because of his colour, race, or national or ethnic origin.
[29]
The investigation report was then disclosed to
the parties, and each party was given an opportunity to respond to it.
Mr. Bhattacharyya availed himself of this opportunity, providing the
Commission with a lengthy and detailed critique of the investigation report.
[30]
The Commission subsequently accepted the
investigator’s recommendation and dismissed Mr. Bhattacharyya’s complaint in a
decision letter dated May 2, 2013.
IV.
The Issues
[31]
Mr. Bhattacharyya describes the issues in
this case as being:
1.
Whether the Commission interviewed and
cross-examined everyone who witnessed his “public
humiliation” at the Insights training session and the harassment that he
faced up until the termination of his employment?
2.
Whether the Commission “scrutinized
for apparent contradictions and self-contradictions the statements of those who
were interviewed”?
3.
Whether the Commission “cross-examined
and exhausted all the resources … in establishing the facts”?
4.
Whether the Commission erred in concluding that
the evidence did not support Mr. Bhattacharyya’s claim that he had been
treated in an adverse differential manner, harassed and terminated from his
employment because of his colour, race, or national or ethnic origin?
[32]
I understand Mr. Bhattacharyya’s first and
third issues to relate to the thoroughness of the Commission’s investigation
and his other two issues to relate to the reasonableness of the Commission’s
decision to dismiss his human rights complaint.
V.
Legal Principles Governing the Review of
Commission Decisions
[33]
Before considering the issues raised by
Mr. Bhattacharyya, it is helpful to examine the nature and extent of the
Canadian Human Rights Commission’s obligations when investigating a human
rights complaint.
[34]
The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the role
of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, 140 D.L.R. (4th) 193. There, the
Supreme Court observed that the Commission is not an adjudicative body, and
that the adjudication of human rights complaints is reserved to the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal. The Commission’s duty “is to
decide if, under the provisions of the Act, an inquiry is warranted having
regard to all the facts. The central component of the Commission’s role, then,
is that of assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before it”: at
para. 53. See also Syndicat des employés de
production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Canada (Human Rights Commission),
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 879, [1989] S.C.J. No. 103 (“SEPQA”).
[35]
The Federal Court of Appeal has described the
Commission’s role as being analogous to that of a judge conducting a
preliminary inquiry. That is, the Commission’s function is not to adjudicate a
complaint, but to determine on the basis of the investigation report and any
submissions made by the parties, whether there is a reasonable basis in the
evidence for proceeding to an inquiry: Richards v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FCA 341 at para. 7,
[2008] F.C.J. No. 1526.
[36]
The Commission has a broad discretion to
determine whether “having regard to all of the
circumstances” further inquiry is warranted: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10, [2012] 1
S.C.R. 364 at paras. 21 and 25 (“Halifax v. Nova Scotia”); Mercier v.
Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1994] 3 F.C. 3, [1994] 3 F.C.J. No.
361 (F.C.A.). Indeed, in Bell Canada v. Communications, Energy and
Paperworkers Union of Canada, [1999] 1 F.C. 113, [1998] F.C.J. No. 1609,
the Federal Court of Appeal noted that “[t]he Act grants
the Commission a remarkable degree of latitude when it is performing its
screening function on receipt of an investigation report”: at para. 38,
(my emphasis).
[37]
However, when deciding whether further inquiry
is warranted, the process followed by the Commission must be fair.
[38]
In Slattery v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights
Commission), [1994] 2 F.C. 574, [1994] F.C.J. No. 181; aff’d 205 N.R. 383
(F.C.A.), this Court discussed the content of the duty of fairness required of
Commission investigations. The Court observed that in fulfilling its statutory
responsibility to investigate complaints of discrimination, the Commission’s
investigations must be both neutral and thorough.
[39]
Insofar as the requirement of thoroughness is concerned,
the Court in Slattery observed that “deference
must be given to administrative decision-makers to assess the probative value
of evidence and to decide to further investigate or not to further investigate
accordingly”: at para. 56. The investigator is not obliged to
interview each and every person suggested by the parties: Slattery,
above, at para. 69; see also Miller v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights
Commission) (re Goldberg) (1996), 112 F.T.R. 195 at para. 10, [1996] F.C.J.
No. 735. It is only “where unreasonable omissions are
made, for example where an investigator failed to investigate obviously
crucial evidence, that judicial review is warranted”: Slattery,
above, at para. 56 [my emphasis].
[40]
As to what will constitute “obviously crucial
evidence”, this Court has stated that “the ‘obviously
crucial test’ requires that it should have been obvious to a reasonable person
that the evidence an applicant argues should have been investigated was crucial
given the allegations in the complaint”: Gosal v. Canada (Attorney
General), 2011 FC 570 1147 at para. 54, [2011] F.C.J. No.; Beauregard v.
Canada Post, 2005 FC 1383 at para. 21, 294 F.T.R. 27.
[41]
The requirement for thoroughness in
investigations must also be considered in light of the Commission’s administrative
and financial realities. With this in mind, the jurisprudence has established
that Commission investigations do not have to be perfect. As the Federal Court
of Appeal observed in Tahmourpour v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005
FCA 113 at para. 39, [2005] F.C.J. No. 543:
Any judicial review
of the Commission’s procedure must recognize that the agency is master of its
own process and must be afforded considerable latitude in the way that it
conducts its investigations. An investigation into a human rights complaint
cannot be held to a standard of perfection; it is not required to turn every
stone. The Commission's resources are limited and its case load is heavy. It
must therefore balance the interests of complainants in the fullest possible
investigation and the demands of administrative efficacy. [Citations omitted]
[42]
The jurisprudence has also established that some
defects in the investigation may be overcome by providing the parties with the
right to make submissions with respect to the investigation report: Slattery,
above at para. 57. As the Federal Court of Appeal observed in Sketchley v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404, [2006] 3 F.C.R. 392, the only
errors that will justify the intervention of a court on review are “investigative flaws that are so fundamental that they cannot
be remedied by the parties’ further responding submissions”: at para.
38.
[43]
Where, as here, the Commission adopts the
recommendations of an investigation report and provides limited reasons for its
decision, the investigation report will be viewed as constituting the
Commission’s reasoning for the purpose of a decision under section 44(3) of the
Act: see SEPQA, above at para. 35; Bell Canada, above at para.
30.
[44]
However, if the Commission decides to dismiss a
complaint based upon a deficient investigation, that decision will be deficient
because “[i]f the reports were defective, it follows that
the Commission was not in possession of sufficient relevant information upon
which it could properly exercise its discretion”: see Grover v.
Canada (National Research Council), 2001 FCT 687 at para. 70, 206 F.T.R.
207; see also Sketchley, above, at para. 112.
[45]
With this understanding of the Commission’s role
and responsibilities in dealing with complaints of discrimination, I will next consider
Mr. Bhattacharyya’s arguments as to the inadequacy of the investigation in
this case.
VI.
Was the Commission’s Investigation Sufficiently
Thorough?
[46]
Mr. Bhattacharyya did not address the issue
of standard of review in his submissions, while Viterra concedes that questions
of procedural fairness are reviewable on the standard of correctness. I agree.
It is for this Court to determine whether the process followed by the
Commission investigator satisfied the level of fairness required in all of the
circumstances: see Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa,
2009 SCC 12 at para. 43, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339.
[47]
Mr. Bhattacharyya takes issue with the fact
that the Commission’s investigator did not interview and cross-examine every
one of the 30 people in attendance at the Insights training session. However,
as noted earlier, the Commission is not obligated to interview every possible
witness.
[48]
Mr. Bhattacharyya suggests that the investigator
should have discounted the evidence of Ms. King, Mr. Conly and Mr. Nugent since
their conduct was at issue. However, the investigator also interviewed Ms. Petz,
Ms. Haines and Ms. Phenix, and their evidence was also not helpful to
Mr. Bhattacharyya’s case.
[49]
Commission investigators are not required to
cross-examine witnesses: a Commission investigation is a fact-finding
endeavour, and not a trial. Nor are Commission investigators required to “exhaust all resources” in establishing the facts. The investigator
interviewed each and every person that had been identified by one side or the
other as potentially having information that was relevant to
Mr. Bhattacharyya’s complaint. The investigator did not fail to interview
any potential witness identified by Mr. Bhattacharyya, and he has not
demonstrated that any witness with obviously crucial evidence was overlooked by
the investigator.
[50]
Mr. Bhattacharyya asserts that the
investigator also failed to obtain key documents, in particular, an exchange of
emails between himself and Viterra management that followed his performance
evaluation. However, the investigator reviewed Mr. Bhattacharyya’s
performance evaluation and spoke to each of the individuals involved in the
discussions that ensued. In these circumstances, Mr. Bhattacharyya has not
persuaded me that the investigator overlooked obviously crucial evidence.
[51]
Finally, Mr. Bhattacharyya’s submissions to
this Court essentially mirror the submissions he made to the Commission in
response to the investigation report. There is no reason to believe that the
Commission did not carefully consider these submissions in deciding that
further inquiry into Mr. Bhattacharyya’s human rights complaint was not
warranted. Mr. Bhattacharyya has also failed to identify any flaws in the
investigation that were so fundamental that they could not have been remedied
by his responding submissions. As a consequence, I have not been persuaded that
Mr. Bhattacharyya was treated unfairly in the investigation process.
VII.
Was the Commission’s Decision Reasonable?
[52]
Mr. Bhattacharyya also did not address the
question of standard of review ion relation to the merits of the Commission’s
decision. Viterra submits that the merits of a Commission decision are
reviewable on the reasonableness standard. I agree: Halifax v. Nova Scotia, above at paras. 27, 40, and 45.
[53]
In reviewing a decision against the
reasonableness standard, it is not the task of this Court to re-weigh the
evidence, nor is the question whether I would have come to the same conclusion
as did the Commission. The question for the Court is whether the Commission’s decision
to dismiss Mr. Bhattacharyya’s human rights complaint is justified,
transparent and intelligible, and whether it falls within a range of possible
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in light of the facts and the law: see
Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para. 47, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190.
[54]
The reasons of an administrative decision-maker
such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission do not have to be perfect. They
are, moreover, not to be parsed, line-by-line, but are to be read organically,
as a whole, in order to determine whether they meet the Dunsmuir
standard: Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and
Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 at para. 14, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708.
[55]
In this case, the investigator reasonably
concluded that Mr. Bhattacharyya was not treated adversely in the course
of his employment as a result of his race, colour or national or ethnic origin,
and that these factors did not play a role in the termination of Mr. Bhattacharyya’s
employment.
[56]
The investigator accepted that Viterra IT
managers had voiced frustration at the training session with respect to problems
they were encountering with the off-shore contractors, although there was
conflicting evidence as to precisely what was said. The investigator also
accepted that Mr. Bhattacharyya had taken offence to some of the comments,
but found that Viterra’s management had responded appropriately to Mr.
Bhattacharyya’s concerns. While Mr. Bhattacharyya may disagree with this
conclusion, he has not demonstrated that it was unreasonable.
[57]
Mr. Bhattacharyya also identified what he
says are internal inconsistencies in the investigator’s analysis. By way of
example, he says that Ms. Phenix claimed that nothing untoward was said at
the training session, while asserting at the same time that she kept an eye on
Mr. Bhattacharyya in order to make sure that he was not upset.
[58]
Counsel for Viterra argued that the findings
were not inconsistent, noting that the fact that the facilitator may have “kept tabs” on Mr. Bhattacharyya (who was the only
person of Indian descent present at the training session) during the discussion
of difficulties that Viterra management had encountered in India did not mean that the comments made were discriminatory. More fundamentally, however,
Mr. Bhattacharyya had the opportunity to draw these alleged
inconsistencies to the Commission’s attention in his response to the
investigation report. He did so, and the Commission is presumed to have
considered his submissions. He has not persuaded me that any perceived
inconsistency in these findings renders the Commission’s decision unreasonable.
[59]
The investigator weighed the conflicting
evidence regarding Mr. Bhattacharyya’s other allegations, and found that the
comments attributed to Mr. Conly did not establish that
Mr. Bhattacharyya had been treated differently on the basis of his race or
national origin outside of the training session.
[60]
For example, Mr. Conly’s like or dislike of
Indian food, his comments about Ms. Petz being nervous about her trip to
India, and the dismissal of an Indian employee working under
Mr. Bhattacharyya’s supervision did not clearly demonstrate that Mr.
Bhattacharyya had been treated in an adverse manner. The investigator further
concluded that even if they did, it had not been shown that the adverse
treatment was linked to Mr. Bhattacharyya’s nationality or race, or that
of the dismissed employee.
[61]
The investigator also concluded that the
evidence did not support Mr. Bhattacharyya’s claim that his Indian
ethnicity played a role in his performance appraisal or in the termination of
his employment. The investigator interviewed the witnesses who had information
relating to these issues and concluded that Mr. Bhattacharyya’s
philosophical approach to his job differed from that of Viterra’s management,
and that it was this difference that led to the employer actions in issue.
Mr. Bhattacharyya has not demonstrated the existence of a reviewable error
in this regard.
[62]
Errors in the investigation report identified by
Mr. Bhattacharyya, such as Mr. Nugent’s proper job title and the date
of Ms. Petz’s trip to India, were minor and insufficient to call the
reasonableness of the overall decision into question.
[63]
Finally, Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the
individuals interviewed by the Commission investigator were biased because they
were Viterra employees, and would, therefore, be expected to support the
position of their employer. The evidence does not, however, support the factual
premise of Mr. Bhattacharyya’s argument. Ms. Phenix was never a Viterra
employee, and Ms. King, Mr. Conly, Mr. Nugent and Ms. Petz
no longer worked for Viterra at the time of the investigation.
VIII.
Conclusion
[64]
For these reasons, the application for judicial
review is dismissed. Viterra is entitled to its costs at the mid-point of Column III of Tariff B to the Federal Courts Rules.
Email this Content