Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#18720
RESTRAINT ORDER & $ 15 K award hits toxic staff E-MAIL ABUSER Y.C.C. # 163 v ROBINSON 2017/04/21 23:08  
Can E-mails - some acknowledged as valid complaints - create a toxic workplace danger ?

Can the validity of some of her claims be validly construed as to enhance the exposure of the alleged victims ?

Both sides with counsel, an E-MAIL CRITIC OWNER is here hit with a permanent restraint order.

PLUS for all inclusive $15 K of the prevailing costs of Y.C.C. # 163 ( plus her own ) for what Justice EM Morgan holds is ongoing toxic staff abuse by E-MAIL.

Holds the defendant owner's personal insults reach a sufficiently toxic personal level as to violate the Occupational Health & Safety Act RSO 1990 ch O.1 and dangerous activities S 117 of the Condo Act 1998 & a Rule.

Interesting & possibly dubious aspect is the finding that the recipients claim to be even more vulnerable to her personal insults because her e-mails may contain valid reports.

"Gotta read" ? Her valid input thus is put to work against her here for allegedly magnifying the targets' exposure to her alleged toxicity !

YCC # 163 v Robinson 2017 ONSC 2419 issued April 19/17 http://canlii.ca/t/h387b

xcrpt Endorsement Justice E.M. Morgan

cites Roth, Wong, Korolekh, Weeks (Ottawa 2003 ) and OIKLE 1994 MTCC #850 v Oikle 1994 ; xcrpt Endorsement

. . . [4] Counsel for the Respondent submits that his client is a habitual email writer.

He agrees that she is also a complainer.

He points out, however, that as a resident of the building she has a right to complain.

Not only that, but some of her complaints are valid. She has complained about the hot water in the building being turned off for extended periods of time, about doorways that are broken and will not close, and other matters that the Applicant concedes need to be attended to.

[5] Because of this situation, management of the building does not want to ignore the Respondent’s emails. She often brings important maintenance issues to their attention.

Thus, although it is possible to ignore a person’s emails by simply deleting them without opening and reading them, management is not anxious to do that.

They do want to know what the Respondent has to say.

[6] The problem is that the Respondent has somehow formed the view that she should express herself by calling the office manager and other employees in the building degrading epithets and labels. . . .

[15] Again, counsel for the Applicant points out that the Applicant is not seeking to silence the Respondent or to create a situation in which she is unable to articulate her criticisms and complaints about the building.

They are merely trying to get her to communicate in a civil, non-harassing manner... "
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster